1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the first instance, the payment order shall be exceeded by:

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "The plaintiff is seeking to repay the amount of KRW 139,154,600 to the claim of the court of first instance"; "The plaintiff is seeking to correct the amount of KRW 139,154,600 to the claim of the court of first instance"; "12,850,000 won" shall be "12,350,000 won"; "the 10,000,000 won" shall be "the 10,000,000 won" in the 10,000,000 won in the 10,000,000 won in the 3th,000,000 won in the 3th,00,000 won in the 10th,000 won in the 3th,00,000 won in the 139,154,600,000 won in the 20.

2. According to the changed part, the Plaintiff is confirmed to have lent or invested the Defendants a total of KRW 134,154,600 ( KRW 123,50,000, KRW 10,654,600) in connection with the said new multi-household housing construction business. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 134,154,60 and delay damages, barring any special circumstances.

Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that he remitted to the defendants of December 7, 2009 KRW 5 million in relation to the business of constructing the above multi-household house, but considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the plaintiff borrowed KRW 5 million from the above agricultural bank account under the plaintiff's name to the Internet banking on December 7, 2009 and repaid the amount. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's remittance of KRW 5 million to the defendants on December 7, 2009 shall be deemed to be the name of repayment of KRW 5 million borrowed on the same day. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion on different premise is different.