1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

1. The plaintiff filed a non-permission of compulsory execution based on the authentic deed of this case, which is null and void as the principal lawsuit. The defendant filed a claim as a counterclaim, and the court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's claim as the principal lawsuit, dismissed the defendant's primary counterclaim, and partly accepted the defendant's preliminary counterclaim.

As to this, the plaintiff and the defendant appealed only for the preliminary counterclaim claim in the judgment of the court of first instance, this court has judged only the defendant's preliminary counterclaim claim.

2. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A witness shall be appointed as a witness of the first instance court among the grounds for recognition of the third and seventh sides of the judgment of the first instance. A witness shall be appointed as “a witness of the first instance court.” The third and sixth deeds of the judgment of the first instance shall be used as “service.” The third and sixth deeds of the judgment of the first instance shall be used as “service.” The notarial deeds of monetary loan contract (hereinafter “notarial deeds of this case”) Nos. 6, 8 and 9 of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “notarial deeds”).

The “this case’s notarial deed” has been cited as “the instant notarial deed. 3. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the use of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance or the addition of a part of the reasoning is as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The judgment of the court of first instance regarding the Defendant’s conjunctive counterclaim was made by the 9th page of the judgment of the court of first instance by putting the “stock company Pu

The following parts shall be added to the last day of the judgment of the first instance.

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s employer liability is recognized, the Defendant, the issuer, Samsung, Inc.