1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the principal suit, upon the Plaintiff’s request for a change in exchange at the trial.

(b) must be computed;

(3) The court may determine the reasonable amount of damages in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and all the circumstances recognized as the result of the examination of evidence where it is extremely difficult to prove the specific amount of damages in light of the nature of the case, even though the fact that the damage was caused is recognized. (3) If it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage due to the nature of the case, the court may determine the reasonable amount as damages.

(B) (1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 9 and the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the market price of the Co., Ltd. in this case sold the Co., Ltd. around December 29, 2016 is KRW 47,712,720. Therefore, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions and legal principles, the amount that the defendant is liable to compensate for to C is KRW 47,712,720. ① The plaintiff was the defendant who was supplied on April 30, 2017 with the goods No. 436L20.81259C, supply price No. 72,870,336 (including tax invoices) as the defendant at the time of the issuance of the electronic Co., Ltd., Ltd. on the basis of these facts. However, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff purchased the electronic Co., Ltd. in this case from the above 2014.

However, the time of issuance of the above electronic tax invoice is two years and eight months from the time of the Defendant’s sale of the instant co-days, and it is difficult to view it as materials that reflect the market price at the time of sale of the above co-days, considering the market price fluctuations or deterioration after the date of sale.

③ The Defendant’s co-days in G.