1. Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment below.

1. The plaintiff's grounds for appeal cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are identical to the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance except for the contents newly asserted in the court of first instance, and the remaining grounds for appeal except for the new assertion are presented to the court of first instance, and even if the plaintiff's evidence submitted to the court of first instance shows the whole purport of the pleading in the evidence No. 35 through No. 47 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted by the court of first instance, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of first instance

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the contents asserted by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore, the relevant part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) drafted a supplementary agreement on the agreement on the transfer of shares with the F Limited Corporation (hereinafter “F”); and (b) jointly assumed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff; (c) on October 22, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a preparatory document as of October 22, 2018 for the contract between the Defendant and B for a third party; and (d) the Defendant, as a co-existence of the obligation to pay for the said goods, was obligated to pay for the said goods directly to the Plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant submitted a copy of the supplementary agreement of this case as a copy, and the defendant raised an objection against the use of it as a substitute for the original, and there is no fact that the defendant affixed the seal to the supplementary agreement of this case.

Even if it is not so, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have concurrently assumed the obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff only through the supplementary consultation in this case.

3...