1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the counterclaim claims added in the trial are dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance stated “1. Determination on the cause of the claim” as “1. Determination on the claim on the principal claim”.

B. The second sentence of the first instance judgment “250 million won” in the seventh sentence of the second instance judgment is deemed to be “235 million won.”

C. On October 13, 2013, the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, “O. 13, 2013.” is deemed to read “O. 13, 2009.”

The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "Judgment on the defendant's assertion 2." in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion and judgment on the defendant's counterclaim."

E. Following the 11th instance judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case against the Plaintiff should be dismissed, and the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 11,950,00, including taxes, purification tanks, repair costs, and various taxes on the instant real estate, including KRW 15,015,60, and damages for delay.”

F. The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance added “the main claim and counterclaim” to “after the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

G. The first instance judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”) 1 to 9 shall be followed as follows.

【2) The Plaintiff paid 30 million won to the Defendant for the purpose of public taxes, public charges, and facility expenses incurred after the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant agreed to settle the sales price of D forest when acquiring the ownership of the instant real estate, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3 The defendant asserts that he paid the total of KRW 11,950,000, such as facility cost including the installation cost of septic tanks and taxes and public charges.

(1) With respect to the installation cost of a septic tank, the defendant shall invest as an investor.