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

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part which is written or added in accordance with paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. In the part which is used or added by the court of first instance, "designated funeral" in paragraph (10) of the 3th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as "designated funeral" and "the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case" in the 5th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as "the

On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added.

The plaintiff, even if not so, failed to do so, because the plaintiff made a mistake that the plaintiff would transfer 150,000,000 won to the plaintiff, and entered into a repayment contract with C and K acting for the defendant, and the defendant's transfer of 150,000,000 won to the plaintiff is an important part of the contract. Thus, the above repayment contract was revoked upon delivery of the brief dated September 26, 2012. Therefore, the defendant must return the arrears 91,158,271 won repaid by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment. In the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the 13th through 14th of the 14th of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the 13th to 9th of the 14th of the 19th of the 2

“(2) As to the scope of the liability for damages to be borne by the Defendant due to the above C’s tort, the Plaintiff paid KRW 150,000,000 with the loan to B, and immediately returned KRW 9,000,000 as interest, etc., it shall be deemed that KRW 141,00,000, which is the difference, is damages.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff should be KRW 141,123,287 remaining after appropriating the said KRW 9,00,00 to the principal and interest, and therefore, it may be deemed that the Defendant was the person who was the victim of the damage. However, the Defendant’s assertion as above cannot be viewed as above inasmuch as it is merely the conjunctive argument.