1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for correction, deletion, modification, or addition as follows. As such, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, Paragraph (3) 4 of Paragraph (3) of Paragraph (3) of Paragraph (3) of the same Article, the plaintiff "Third is the defendant," and the non-permanent plaintiff is corrected as "the non-permanent defendant."

(b) by striking Section 1.h of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

C. Of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” under Article 2. 2. b. 1 is corrected as “Plaintiff’s”.

Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, the term "providing the reality" in Section 2.(b) No. 3 is changed to the term "providing the performance of the survey equipment for risk assessment, asbestos materials repair measures, integrated asbestos safety management system, patent construction method, marketing, business support, etc.".

E. Of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the statement from 2. B. 18 to 20.

(f) the last sentence of paragraph (b) of Article 2. among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, shall be added as follows:

The defendant asserts that "the plaintiff refused to cooperate in the acquisition of the risk assessment survey equipment and the asbestos materials repair measure equipment, etc., and such intent has been firmly established, the defendant could not deliver the above equipment, thereby making it impossible to supply or provide the integrated asbestos safety management system and the right to use patent construction methods, etc., which are premised on the acquisition of the above equipment."

It is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion only with the descriptions or images of the evidence Nos. 4 through 16 (Additional Nos. 4 through 16). There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit.