1. The judgment of the first instance on the counterclaim is modified as follows. A.

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s “Defendant” under five lines below the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as “the network B (hereinafter “the network”); (b) the other Defendant’s “the Defendant” shall be deemed as “the network”; and (c) the following facts shall be added to the third last sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) the Plaintiff’s new argument by the court of first instance shall be added to the following judgments under the third sentence of the 7th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of

2. Added or combined part (the fact that it is added to the last part of the judgment of the first instance);

E. The Deceased died on October 27, 2017, during the trial of the trial, and on the deceased’s legal heir, Defendant E and H, who is the wife Defendant G and children (legal share is 3/7 and 2/7 each of the children), and the Defendants filed an application for taking over the instant legal proceedings with the court on December 13, 2017.

【The seventh three-party written judgment of the court of first instance and the seventh three-party written judgment are as follows]

B. On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff stated in the instant receipt that “the instant apartment sales price is transferred to the deceased” as to the defense that the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention is revoked by coercion, because of continuous assault and threat by the deceased against the Plaintiff, and this constitutes a declaration of intention by coercion. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s service of the preparatory document as of November 14, 2017 is revoked.

It is insufficient to recognize that the deceased committed assault and threat to the extent that it constitutes an illegal threat of harm and injury at the time of the preparation of the receipt of this case by only the descriptions of evidence Nos. 5 and 6 and testimony of witness F, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

C. As to the defense of repayment, the Plaintiff received part of the sale price of the apartment of this case as a check, and the check worth KRW 40 million among them.