1. Of the part on the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, 111,00,000 won against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Scope of the deliberation of the political party;

A. As a claim in the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 722,810,620, and KRW 330,000,000,000 of the cost of the construction of the sand plant and KRW 1,052,810,620 of the cost of the construction of the sand plant. The first instance court rejected the claim for the cost of the construction of the sand plant and the claim for the cost of the construction of the sand plant, and the Plaintiff dismissed the claim for the cost of the construction of the sand plant. As to the dismissal of the claim for the cost of the construction of the sand plant, the Defendant appealed each part

In addition, the plaintiff had extended the amount of 10,000,000 won to 340,000,000 won for sand plant depreciation costs in the first instance.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a counterclaim, as stated in the purport of the counterclaim, a claim for the delivery of stone in the first instance court, a claim for delivery of land, a claim for rent, and a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent. The first instance court partly accepted the claim for the delivery of stone in the first instance court (67,717,650 won) and partly accepted the claim for the delivery of land and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent and rent. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed only on the part of accepting the claim for the delivery of land and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent and rent.

C. Therefore, the scope of the trial on the political party is limited to the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit (including the claim extended in the trial), the part of the Defendant’s counterclaim’s claim for the delivery of land and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and rent, and the part of the Defendant’s counterclaim claim for the supply of tin portion among the Defendant’s counterclaim

2. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the part of the claim for the supply of stone (Article 3-1(a)) excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is deleted, and the remaining grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as stated in the main sentence of Article 42

3. Parts to be dried;

(a) 5 pages 8;