Defendant BD, BJ, K, and BL jointly do so, each of the amounts stated in the separate sheet “the balance” to the Plaintiffs, and the same.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim against the defendant BD, since the defendant BD actually operates the above BD lighting construction company, the above company is not a government-funded enterprise, and it does not replace the BD electric power, etc. with the above business entity free of charge, even if it is replaced with the LED electric power plant and installed an electric reduction system, there is no effect that the electricity rate is reduced to at least 50%, and even if it is installed, it is not possible to reduce or exempt the amount of the above BD electric power plant loan from the above list No. 20 to pay the above amount of the damage compensation as part of the reduced electric power plant loan cost, the defendant BD's deception by deceiving the plaintiff as to the above amount of the damage compensation amount as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 20, and the defendant BD obtained the above amount of the damage compensation amount as stated in the separate sheet No. 201 to the defendant B181.