1. The judgment of the court of first instance, including the primary claim extended at the trial among the defendant's counterclaim and the additional preliminary claim.

1. The reasons why this Court is stated in this part of the underlying facts are the same as that of “1. Basic Facts” in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, if it excludes the following parts, and thus, they are included in summary in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

on January 16, 2006, "243,76,269 won" and "6,766,269 won" and "6,310,76,269 won" in the sum of "6,310,76,269 won" and "6,310,766,359 won" shall be deemed "6,310,76,359 won," and "6,76,359 won" shall be deemed "6,310,76,359 won," among the amounts stated in

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Nos. 1 to 7 1.

The paragraph (1) of this section shall be amended to the following:

1) The Plaintiff brought a lawsuit claiming the payment, etc. of indemnity against the Defendant, claiming that “at the time of the purchase of the instant real estate, the payment of the purchase price was made in excess of his/her investment ratio, thereby causing the claim for indemnity against the Defendant.” (The first instance court: the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap8535, the second instance court: Seoul Central District Court 2014Na48899, and the second instance court 2014Na4899 and the second instance court hereinafter referred to as “related civil case”).

(2) In the relevant civil case, the Defendant filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is difficult to deem that the Defendant agreed to contribute 20% of the purchase price and incidental expenses in money exceeding the above KRW 2 billion,” and that the Defendant rendered a final and conclusive judgment against the Plaintiff on March 10, 2014, stating that the Plaintiff’s act of personally using the funds of the association, such as purchasing the individual vehicle with the funds of the instant association and paying the maintenance cost of the relevant vehicle, and paying a monthly wage for the individual driver, constitutes occupational breach of trust. The Plaintiff’s act of personally using the funds of the association constitutes occupational breach of trust. The Plaintiff’s act of withdrawing the value-added tax paid in the course of acquiring the instant real estate without permission, and withdrawing the value-added tax refunded in the course of acquiring the instant real estate without permission, thereby constituting occupational embezzlement. The fact of

The District Prosecutors' Office;