1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked.

. has reached.

2) The facts that the Defendant’s statement dated June 21, 2016, stating that he/she set off each of the above claims against the Plaintiff on June 21, 2016, is clear. (c) It is insufficient to extinguish all of the Plaintiff’s claims for compensation of damages with the Defendant’s automatic claims calculated for set-off; and unless there is an agreement or designation for set-off appropriation, the set-off shall be made in the order of court appropriation, and the calculation process and results thereof shall be as follows: 3. 4. 5% of the principal claim 】 15. 2. 5% of the principal claim 】 46. 2. 5% of the principal claim 】 26. 5% of the principal claim 】 46. 5% of the principal claim 】 26. 5% of the principal claim 】 26. 5% of the total damages 】 26. 15% of the total damages 】 3. 46% of the total damages 】 26. 5% of the principal claim 】 5% of the remaining 26. 15% of the total 26. 15% of the total 2. 14. 2. 15% of the 2. 2. 26. 14.

D. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s instant claim (i.e., set-off claim) reaches KRW 95,29,623 (i.e., KRW 34,674,153 out of the principal on January 2, 2015). The Defendant’s defense of set-off exists within the scope of the foregoing recognition (i.e., set-off claim based on the automatic claim as preliminary claim).

Ultimately, with respect to the above KRW 95,299,623 remaining after set-off against the Plaintiff and KRW 43,398,471, which is the part cited by the court of first instance, among them, the Defendant’s existence and scope of the obligation from May 27, 2015, which is the day following the set-off.