The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Daejeon District Court sentenced the defendant to the plaintiff on April 9, 2015.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and this part of the cited case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for

(Attached List). Part 3 of Part 10 of the third part is “the plaintiff” to “the defendant.”

A. The lower court held that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the witness of the first instance trial.

A. Each of the “23,763,311 won” of the 4th 5, 6th 5, and 7th 5th 7th saw as “43,863,311 won”

A. Following the fifth 8th page, the “20,100,000 won based on the instant judgment” is added. The fifth 16,17 acts are as follows:

- The duty to compensate for losses remaining: 43,863,311 won = 87,154,41 won (=20,612,666 won), 612,660 won - 43,291,100 won - 43,291,100 won - the last day of the fifth 15th 5th 5th 15th 100 (the Plaintiff asserts that additional repayment deposit exists, but the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit) 5th 17th 5th 17th 5th 5th 29th 19th 29th 19th 19th 20th 20th 9th 19th 20th 19th 20th 19th 20th 20th 20th 20th 3rd 20th 20th 3rd 19th 201st 2nd 3rd 20th 3rd 20th 3rd 20.

Some testimonys, such as N, etc. of the first instance court.