Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this case is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion to be dismissed or added is that “this court” in the fourth 15th tier of the judgment of the first instance is “the first instance court”, and that “the 16th tier” is “the witness D, and F’s testimony.”

The following shall be added to the fourth 20th of the judgment of the first instance.

The defendant emphasizes that the three-party appraiser's appraisal results show that, unlike the appraisal results of the first instance court appraiser D, the three-party appraiser's appraisal results show that the three-party appraiser's appraisal results show that all of the three-party appraisals "E" as stated in the loan certificates of this case seems to be different from the Defendant's written appraisal.

However, according to the description of Eul evidence Nos. 11 through 13 and the fact-finding result with K of this Court, unlike the original copy of the loan certificate of this case and the original copy of the original copy of this case, the above private appraisal was conducted by the copy of the loan certificate of this case and the copy of the original copy at the time of the first instance trial, and the above appraiser's own recognition that "it is not sufficient to grasp the difference and personal habits according to the conditions of the original copy, because it is the copy of the object of the appraisal," or that "the ex post facto relationship, etc. of part of the pen because it is a copy of the object of the appraisal, has limitations that cannot be observed." ② Unlike the above private appraisal submitted by the defendant, the private appraisal at the court of first instance was conducted under the guarantee of the plaintiff's right to state opinion or the defendant's right to participate in the procedure, and the appraiser D at the court of first instance was present at the court of first instance and stated as a witness and at the court of first instance.