1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

(b).

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is that part of the facts found in the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2, 21 to 4, 1) is the same as that stated in the relevant part, except for the cases in which a part of the facts found in the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2, 21 to 4, 1,

3rd 7 pages "(1,723,00 won)" shall be applied to "(41,723,000 won)."

The following shall be added to 3 pages 20:

D. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor was registered as the Plaintiff’s internal director from July 17, 2014 to March 30, 2017. However, during the aforementioned period, Nonparty N, the spouse of the Plaintiff’s de facto marital relationship, operated the Plaintiff Company. N entered into the instant sales contract on behalf of the Plaintiff on August 25, 2015. E. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 153,803,000 for the remainder of the sales contract under the instant sales contract and the delay damages therefor, and was sentenced to a partial winning judgment at the first instance court. Around March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 153,803,00 for the remainder of the sales contract under the instant sales contract, and was sentenced to a judgment based on the first instance judgment against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant judgment claim”).

All of the plaintiff succeeding intervenors transferred to the defendant, and notified the defendant of the assignment of the claim, and the above notice was given in the same year

3. 18. The defendant was sent to the defendant.

[Attachment 3, the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 was cited as "Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, A, and A. 8 and 9". 2. Where the plaintiff did not withdraw from the lawsuit, the plaintiff's claim and the succeeding intervenor's claim are valid as ordinary co-litigation. Thus, the court shall decide on both the plaintiff's claim and the succeeding intervenor's claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da16729, Jul. 9, 2004). Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim and the succeeding intervenor's claim shall be examined, and the plaintiff's judgment after the judgment of the first instance is rendered.