The appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. The court of first instance has accepted all the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit, and sentenced to a judgment citing a part of the defendant's counterclaim, which only the defendant appealed against the main lawsuit among the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the part of the defendant's counterclaim claim is excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the modification or addition of the following, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the grounds for appeal by the defendant is not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial).

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance reveals that the facts of the first instance and the determination thereof are justifiable even if each evidence was presented to this court). The court of first instance held that “ October 25, 2016” in the fourth 9th 9th judgment of the court of first instance and “the aforementioned appellate court’s judgment became final and conclusive” in the first instance judgment of the same 10th part to “from November 22, 2016,” and deleted from the first instance judgment of the same 10th judgment to “the delivery of the instant officetel as the instant case (Seoul Daejeon District Court 2017 S. 20579) to the effect that the instant instant office was delivered on March 18, 2017, and the compulsory adjustment order became final and conclusive on March 18, 2017 (hereinafter the above lawsuit referred to as “related “instant case”).

Article 13(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The above evidence and the evidence of No. 2 through No. 5 shall be written” of No. 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 5 of the High Court Decision No. 1 shall be written as “the above basic facts and evidence.”

At least 6th 7 pages of the judgment of the first instance court, the trust company responded to the purport that the trust company did not give such comprehensive consent to the non-party company in the relevant case, but it is difficult for the trust company to believe it as it is the interested party closely related to the relevant case and the outcome of the instant case.

Moreover, this trust company is not more than 13 lines in this Court’s repeated replys to the demands for inquiry of facts.