1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.

The first instance court, within the scope of the judgment of this court, partly accepted the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit, dismissed the defendant's main counterclaim, and accepted all the conjunctive counterclaims.

Accordingly, with respect to each part of the lawsuit against the plaintiff as to the main lawsuit and the conjunctive counterclaim, since the defendant appealeds against the main lawsuit, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the plaintiff's claim as to the main lawsuit and the defendant's conjunctive counterclaim.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and this court’s explanation is identical to the part falling under the scope of the judgment of this court among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the plaintiff’s argument is determined as to this case as stated in paragraph (3). As such, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part to be used for dismissal is followed by the second sentence “as of September 8, 2016” as “as of August 9, 2016.”

From 16th to 17th of the first instance judgment, the following shall be followed:

D. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 20 and Eul evidence Nos. 27 as to the claim for return of unfair withdrawal, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments, the fact that the sum of KRW 19 million was withdrawn from the business account of the instant hospital to the Defendant’s personal account is recognized.

Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances as to whether the Defendant voluntarily withdrawn KRW 19 million from the hospital without authority and obtained unfair profits, the Defendant appears to have obtained the said money without any legal ground, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise by the Defendant to have acquired the said money without any legal ground. In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned KRW 19 million was deemed to have been paid by the Defendant as the employee of the instant hospital’s salary position and received the said money from July 2016 and August 2016.

① Around April 2013, F, etc. established the instant hospital under the name of the Defendant, who is a doctor, and the Defendant.