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

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is charged with KRW 65,024,723.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “2 red” of No. 19 of the first instance trial 3; “this case’s contract” of No. 6 and No. 7 shall be deemed as “instant commissioning Contract”; “No. 10 of the 7th page “No. 28, 2014”; “the Plaintiff” of No. 10 shall be deemed as “the Defendant”; “the Defendant”; “the Defendant of No. 3” of the 13rd page “the Defendant”; “the Defendant of No. 13” as “the witness of the first instance trial”; “the witness” of No. 1416, No. 15 and No. 8; “the court” of the first instance shall be deemed as “the first instance trial”; “the Defendant of the first instance trial” of No. 5 and “the Defendant of No. 20” as “the Defendant’s correction of No. 15 and No. 213 of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act; “The Plaintiff’s correction of No. 101 and No. 141.

The reasoning of the lower court’s conclusion is as follows: (a) adding “decision on the Plaintiff’s argument of offset” to “5. conclusion”; (b) the conclusion of paragraph (4) is changed to “5. conclusion”; and (c) the judgment of the first instance court is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the argument in the trial, thereby citing it as it is

As seen in the cited part, with respect to delay damages in the cited part of the main claim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the initial date should be after the date of September 27, 2014, which is the due date for which the obligation to recover the subsidy for income security was due, and thus, the first instance court erred by taking it as of June 27, 2014 (see Supreme Court Decision 18Da11, 12, and see Supreme Court Decision 18Da181, 12, and only the Plaintiff appealed in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change.)