The judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

A. The Defendant’s KRW 2,282,00,000 against the Plaintiff on September 12, 2018.

The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows, and this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment on the defense before the merits claimed by the defendant in the trial.

[Supplementary parts] Following the judgment of the first instance court, “The plaintiff also purchased kimchi equivalent to KRW 1.73 billion from the F consortium owned by B during the period from May 20, 2014 to May 9, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant kimchi transaction”), and the kimchi subject to the said transaction is referred to as “the instant kimchi transaction,” and the kimchi subject to the said transaction is referred to as “the instant kimchi”).”

In 2014, the list of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (3 pages 3 of the judgment of the first instance court on the Prohibition of Discrimination against H Disabled Persons) is as follows, for the maintenance and repair of the GMART system development in the 2015 JM K mobile K system development, and for the improvement and improvement of the NMA shape management system construction entrusted with the operation of the GMARR, the NMART system construction of the NM PP platform development.

The judgment of the first instance court is on the 4th page 2 and 3 of the 4th instance judgment, “when purchasing kimchi from FF consortium owned by B,” with “B through the instant kimchi transaction.”

4) The Defendant is also the ground for the instant disposition, even though the Plaintiff paid the price of 8.2 billion won higher than that of kimchi sold by major department stores in B through the instant kimchi transaction. The instant kimchi transaction does not fall under the sale of “property” under Article 111(1)2 of the former Insurance Business Act, and the instant kimchi transaction was conducted due to the need for the Plaintiff’s business policies, business activities, etc.