1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification and addition as follows.

Following the 17th instance judgment of the first instance court, “contributed.” Then, the third-party obligor cannot refuse the performance of an obligation in a claim for collection, on the ground that there is no executory claim or its extinction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da34012, Nov. 11, 1994; 2015Da68911, Mar. 24, 2016); and the Defendant (third-party obligor) added “No executory may refuse the performance of an obligation on the ground that there is no executory claim (F) by the Plaintiff (Collection Creditor).”

Following the 19th 16th 16th son of the judgment of the first instance, “A” is added to “A” [it is difficult to recognize a title trust even if all the evidence (including a serial number) presented by the Defendant is combined.”

After the 20th decision of the first instance court, the defendant's executive officers, including the representative director, were replaced by the merchants opposing the business of this case on or after August 31, 2012.

The 21th day to 18th day of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows:

[C] The Defendant’s theory of lawsuit is amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015 by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Oct. 1, 2015, as well as by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015.