1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff is expanded and reduced by this court.

1. Progression of the lawsuit and the scope of the trial by this court;

A. The following facts are clear in records or are significant in this court:

1) The plaintiff is referred to as "the defendant, etc." when he combines the above two co-defendants with the defendant and the co-defendants in a clean bankruptcy plan before the lawsuit is filed and remanded.

(2) On November 18, 2015, each of the instant claims against the Defendant, etc. entered into between the Defendant, etc. (Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap533052). On November 18, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing each of the remaining claims against the Defendant, etc. (Seoul High Court 2015Na2073720), the Defendant, etc. filed an appeal regarding the said judgment (Seoul High Court 2015Na2073720), and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor participated in the Plaintiff’s succession during the appellate trial after receiving an order for the attachment and assignment of the claims against the Defendant, etc.

On May 26, 2017, the above court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s respective claims against the Defendant, etc., dismissed each of the remaining claims, and sentenced the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s entire claim against the Defendant, etc. (hereinafter “pre-delivery judgment”).

3) The Defendant, etc. filed an appeal against the judgment prior to remand (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da242461). On October 12, 2017, the Defendant, which was still pending in the final appeal, was a company established by division and established by the Defendant prior to the taking-off of a lawsuit on October 12, 2017, and taken over the instant legal proceedings immediately after its incorporation. 4) The Supreme Court reversed the part against the Defendant’s Plaintiff (citing the Plaintiff’s claim) in the judgment prior to remand, and remanded the case so reversed to this Court. 2) The Defendant’s appeal against the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor and the final appeal against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, which were pending in the final appeal, were all dismissed.

Accordingly, the judgment prior to the remand against the plaintiff's successor.