1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s appeal against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim and preliminary counterclaim added at the trial.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance except for the following "2. Additional Judgment", and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to the court is comprehensively taken into account.

The court's explanation on the instant case is not only the fourth decision of the court of first instance.

B. (1) (2) A statement in the latter part of paragraph (3) shall be added to the following (3), (4), and (5) shall be replaced to each other, and (2) a statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the same as the statement in the reasoning of the judgment, except for adding the following "2. Additional Judgment" to the corresponding part. As such, a summary statement shall be included in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

③ The Defendant asserts that, among the damaged articles of this case, an anti-pathal and anti-pathal pathal pathal pathal pathal pathal pathal pathal pathal pathal pathal pathal pathal is not an anti-pathal pathal pathal

그러나 앞서 든 증거들에 이 사건 변론에 나타난 제반사정들을 종합해 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ㉠ 위 항아리와 자바기는 원고의 주장에 의하더라도 오래된 고가의 물건들인 점, ㉡ 피고는 위 항아리, 자바기의 가격을 판단할 근거가 되는 객관적 자료들을 전혀 제출하지 못한바, 위 항아리, 자바기와 동일 혹은 유사한 물건을 쉽게 구매할 수 없고, 시장에서 일반적이고 통상적인 가격이 형성된 물건도 아닌 것으로 보이는 점, ㉢ 피고가 운영하는 ‘H’ 판매점의 성격, 취급하는 물건, 관리방법, 가격 등에 비추어 보더라도, 위 항아리를 시중에서 쉽게 구매할 수 있는 장독용 항아리와 같이 취급할 수는 없다고 판단되는 점, ㉣...