The part of the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs.

The reasons why the court of this case is to use in this case are as follows: (a) the reasons why the plaintiff and the defendant are emphasized in or additionally claimed in the trial are identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for addition, deletion or dismissal of the following judgments; and (b) thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

◎ 제 1 심 판결문 제 4 면 제 2 행 및 제 3 행의 “ 별지 목록 기재 자동차( 포 르쉐 911 카 레라

S, “A vehicle of this case” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant vehicle”) shall be cut to “the instant vehicle”.

◎ 제 1 심 판결문 제 4 면 제 12 행의 “ 승용차를” 과 “ 이용하게” 사이에 “ 원고가 ”를 추가한다.

◎ 제 1 심 판결문 제 5 면 마지막 행의 “ 피고의 ”를 삭제한다.

◎ 제 1 심 판결문 제 6 면 제 2 행과 제 3 행 사이에 아래와 같은 부분을 추가한다.

“The Defendant entered into an additional agreement with the Plaintiff to take over the foregoing d. D. 4 S., and the agreement on the use of the instant vehicle that was concluded before that agreement was terminated by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s rescission, the Defendant’s obligation to take delivery of the said d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. f. d. f. f., according to the additional agreement, was terminated by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

” ◎ 제 1 심 판결문 제 7 면 제 6 행과 제 7 행 사이에 아래와 같은 부분을 추가한다.

The plaintiff asserts as follows.

① Since November 14, 2018, the Defendant occupied (indirect possession) the instant motor vehicle through an execution officer, the Defendant’s agreement on the use of the instant motor vehicle was cancelled on November 8, 2018, on the ground that the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation was cancelled on November 8, 2018, on which the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant.