1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if each evidence submitted by the court of first instance was presented to the court.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "32 million won" in 4th page 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance; "20 million won" in 4, 10, and 16th page 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and "2,00,000 won" in 20,000 won in 4, 10,000 won in 16th page 4, the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the following 2

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s counterclaim (based on the legal brief dated November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount of KRW 31,70 million against the Plaintiff’s Defendant’s claim for the loan of KRW 60 million against the Defendant (i.e., KRW 10 million, KRW 21,700,000, KRW 1000, KRW 1000, KRW 1700, KRW 1700, KRW 1000, KRW 21,700, KRW) is offset against the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment or the claim for reimbursement of useful expenses, and that the Defendant set off against the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 25 million against the Plaintiff with the remainder of the loan with KRW 35,00,000 against the Plaintiff). As such, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 35 million against D’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 30,000,000, KRW 20,000.

another claim is subject to a defense of simultaneous performance of this case as an automatic claim.