1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case in this case is as follows: ① "Dai City, November 20, 2009" in Section 4, Section 22, of the first instance judgment, shall be read as "Dai City, November 20, 2008"; ② "No. 5, Section 17, of the first instance judgment," respectively, shall be read as "the foregoing paragraph," and ② "the scope of the liability for damages" and "the judgment of the first instance judgment," respectively.

In addition to the application of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the reason of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. 1) The Plaintiff’s lost profit from the Tro-Clokn Won corresponds to “finished-finished goods” under the instant provisional disposition, and asserts that the loss equivalent to the lost profit from the sale, etc. of Tro-Clokn Won, which was possible to be produced and sold during the execution period of the instant provisional disposition, is also a loss due to the unfair execution of the instant provisional disposition. The entries in Gap, Gap, Eul, and Eul Nos. 1, 12, and Eul No. 25 (including the number of those with no special indication; hereinafter the same shall apply) are included.

) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial and the witness of the first instance trial and the witness of the trial (Provided, That this part of the testimony of the above witness is excluded), it is recognized that the enforcement officer, at the time of the execution of the provisional disposition of this case, did not produce and sell the tro-blades for the period of execution of the provisional disposition of this case with respect to tro-blades 1,423yd, which were kept by the plaintiff, by deeming the tro-blades as semi-finished products of the Lro-blades 1,423yd.

However, in full view of the reasoning of the arguments cited in the facts and the evidence admitted in the above-mentioned facts, the Tro-blade set is L.