1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff, which orders the payment of the following amounts.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which falls under this part of the basic facts, is reasonable, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited as the ground for this decision.

2. The plaintiff's main claim

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which falls under this part of the party’s assertion as to whether the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder arises, is cited on the ground of this part.

B. The remainder of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which falls under this part of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder, excluding the 11 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, is cited for this part of the grounds of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the 11th page of

[A evidence Nos. 5 (the defendant's assertion of forgery, but the statement of evidence Nos. 14, 16 through 21, 42 through 49, 63, and 64, and the whole purport of the argument in the testimony of witness D at the appellate trial, it is reasonable to view that Gap evidence No. 5 was duly established in writing by the defendant's employees as the defendant's co-representative of the defendant's co-representative of the defendant's co-representative of the defendant's co-representative of the defendant's co-representative of the defendant's co-representative of E after completing technical consultation with the plaintiff's co-representative of the defendant's co-representative of E after completing technical consultation with the plaintiff's co-representative of the defendant's co-representative of E after signing the plaintiff's co-representative of the plaintiff's co-representative of E, and therefore, the defendant's defense of forgery is without merit.

The following facts are revealed in full view of Gap's evidence Nos. 14, 16 through 21, 42 through 49, 63, 64, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the testimony of the witness D of the appellate trial, the appraiser's appraisal result, and the overall purport of the arguments, and the following facts, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed not to install an inspection and correction process after confirmation among the facilities of this case in the final technology consultation around December 15, 201, and the plaintiff's each facilities of this case.