1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this case are the same as the part concerning the defendants among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the fourth four pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term "deposit amount" shall be 5,00,000 "15,00,000" in four parallels.

B. Under the fourth sentence of the first instance trial, “The purpose of the entire pleadings” is to add “The entry of the evidence No. 1 and the results of the inquiry into the Incheon District Court of the trial court” to “the purport of the entire pleadings.”

(c)one of the 8th decisions of the first instance court (hereinafter “10 million won”) shall be written “20 million won”.

Of the 12 pages of the 8th sentence of the first instance trial, “10,000,000” is “20,000,000”; “amount of appropriation” means “50,000,000”; “amount of appropriation” means “50,000,000”; and “amount of balance” means “30,525,134” in each of “20,525,134,” respectively.

(e) 6 to 10 pages 10 shall be written in the following manner:

【B) The Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20,525,134 of the amount to be paid by Co-Defendant B in collaboration with Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial and at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until August 28, 2019, which is the date the Defendants rendered a ruling of the first instance that deems it reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff from June 21, 2018, as the Plaintiff seeks, with respect to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff.

A person shall be appointed.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants should be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder should be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

The part against the Defendants ordering payment in excess of the above recognition amount among the judgments of the first instance court which partly differed from this conclusion.