1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of appeal, the principal lawsuit and counterclaims are all filed with the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for further determination as to the Defendant’s assertion as to the foregoing case as set forth in paragraph (3). Thus, this is acceptable as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The portion of the judgment of the first instance, which was used or added, shall be 3 as “(c)” and 3 as “(2). On November 29, 2018, G was appointed as a temporary custodian of the Defendant on the fourth 7 side of the judgment of the first instance as “manager.” The following is added to the fourth 13 side of the judgment. DB made an application for temporary suspension of execution of duties against G (the Defendant’s Intervenor) appointed as the Defendant’s custodian by the instant resolution (Seoul District Court Decision 2018Kahap1044, Seoul High Court 2018Ra20708) against G (the Defendant’s Intervenor), and the Seoul High Court decided on November 29, 2018 to suspend the Defendant’s performance of duties as the Defendant’s custodian. Meanwhile, G was appointed as the Defendant’s temporary custodian of Suwon District Court 2019do1029, and the said court made a decision to appoint the Defendant’s provisional custodian of the first 2019Da274.”

From 13th to 11th of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall apply:

The evidence Nos. 36 and 37 submitted by the Defendant is merely a letter of confirmation that there is a fact delegated not by the power of attorney, and the evidence Nos. 35 and 37 submitted by the Defendant with the power of attorney Nos. 35 and 37 is different from that of the power of attorney and the delegation report submitted by the Defendant at the time of the instant resolution, and the form and content of the evidence No. 12 cannot be trusted at latest, and the statement No. 12 of the evidence No. 12 is insufficient to recognize the fact of delegation by AY, BA and B, and no other evidence to acknowledge it exists.