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

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Eul evidence Nos. 9-1 to 3, and Nos. 10 through 12 (including a serial number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) which lack in recognizing the defendant's assertion in this case; however, in case of the recording document (No. 12-1) in a criminal case against the defendant, P states that P has received the first credit amount through the plaintiff; it is reliable that the first credit amount corresponds to the plaintiff's argument that P has received the first credit amount in lieu of P's first credit amount, which is excluded from the rejected evidence) and Q of the witness of the trial of the court of first instance, and it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the reasons for the second instance.

2. Parts (Article 3-b) of the decision of the court of first instance.

In full view of the reasoning of the argument as to Defendant B’s assertion 1) Evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 12-1, and evidence No. 12-1, and evidence No. 1 of the first instance trial witness I of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 17,300,000 after deducting the unpaid amount of KRW 3,300,000,000 from the first and the second accounts, since it was acknowledged that the Plaintiff was to receive KRW 14,00,000,000 from the unpaid amount of KRW 14,30,000,000,000 from September 5, 2013.

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid price of 16.5 million won on or around August 2013 and paid it as the third payment. After then, the defendant asserted that the successful bid price was 15.3 million won on or around April 2013 and paid it as the second payment. The defendant did not submit objective data, such as accounting books, even though the defendant was a supervisor operating the successful bid price.