1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The grounds for this part of the reasoning are as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (b) the “Witness L” of the first seven pages of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as the “Witness L of the court of first instance”; and

(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. The allegations of the parties

A. The reasons why the court stated in this part of the plaintiffs' assertion by the plaintiff 1 in this lawsuit are as follows, and the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except to write down or add some of the contents as follows:

A. 1) The same is as set forth in paragraph (1) (main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The 7th judgment of the first instance court “Plaintiffs” shall be referred to as “A”) Plaintiffs.

The following shall be added between the eight first and second half of the judgment of the first instance:

“B) Even if the nature of the contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant is an installment financing agreement, the Plaintiffs concluded a contract with the knowledge of installment transaction, not an installment financing agreement, and thus, constitutes a case of gross mistake in the content of the contract.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are revoked all the contracts between the plaintiffs and the defendant by serving a preparatory document on April 14, 2020.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs' obligation to pay the remainder of the goods under each sales contract of this case against the defendant was extinguished, and in the case of the plaintiff B, the price of the goods exceeds 11,454,430 won, compared to the goods supplied when settled as of the time of cancellation of the above contract.

Therefore, with respect to the defendant, the plaintiff Eul confirmed the non-existence of an obligation under each goods sales contract listed in the annexed Table 2 through 5, the plaintiff Eul confirmed the non-existence of an obligation under each goods sales contract listed in the annexed Table 1 through 4, and the plaintiff Eul confirmed the non-existence of an obligation under each goods sales contract listed in the annexed Table 2 through 4, and the non-existence of an obligation under each goods sales contract listed in the annexed Table 2 through 5, respectively, and the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff Eul the above 11,454,430 won, which was overpaid due to the cancellation of each

2) The defendant's assertion that the court below held the defendant.