1. As to the counterclaim among the judgment of the first instance, including the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim that was changed in this court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the reasoning of the court of first instance is written or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(1) The court of first instance, even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, is deemed to have been presented to this court, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant in the grounds for appeal. The court of first instance, "No 10th of January 10, 2015, "No 18th of January 10, 2015," and "No 60th of March 15, 2015," and "No 15th of March 2015," respectively, shall be deemed to have been conducted within seven days (60 days after the payment of contract deposit) after the trial (60 days after the payment of contract deposit).

Part III of the judgment of the first instance shall be added as follows.

“The Plaintiff, from November 21, 2014 to May 13, 2015, issued to the Defendant an electronic tax invoice (total of KRW 3 billion 65.7 billion) with respect to the instant machinery, and the Defendant appears to have received it and deducted the input tax amount (No. 23-1 to 7) (i.e., the evidence No. 23-1 to 23), and (ii) the contract for the manufacture and supply of the machinery “No. 13” in the fourth instance judgment of the first instance.

See Chapter 5 of the first instance judgment, i.e., the phenomenon that no melting "in the preceding" is made (as a result of the inquiry into appraiser D of October 31, 2018, adding i.e., the result of the inquiry into the appraiser D of October 31, 2018).

On August 21, 2016, the first instance judgment No. 21, the third party leased to E and the third party leased to E on and around August 21, 2016, and E “A”.

The following shall be added to the fact that it is difficult to exclude the 6th instance judgment from “the 2nd instance judgment.”

“The Defendant has produced a large amount of accelerator products using the instant machinery from July 18, 2015 to December 24, 2015 (e.g., CP-153 products samples: 1,800m around July 22, 2015 x 2 roll (total 3,600m);

7. Around 29.29. Each production of 2,800 meters, and the CP.