1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 as well as to the plaintiff on December 2018.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as

2. The third party decision of the first instance court concerning the dismissal or addition shall be the “family appraiser” of the third party decision of the first instance.

The fourth decision of the court of first instance shall be referred to as the "reguination" of the fourth decision of the court of first instance.

The fifth sentence of the first instance court's ruling "I wish to read" is called "I wish to read."

The 6th sentence of the first instance court shall raise the "time" of the 19th sentence to "time".

The 9th sentence of the first instance court's decision shall be referred to as "or".

Part 14 of the Decision of the first instance shall add to the following:

The Plaintiff asserts that the E-district union did not have the responsibility for the appraisal of business rights to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not delay the Plaintiff’s appraisal business compared with other appraisal corporations. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have threatened or pressed the E-district union in order to give a license for the appraisal of business rights. However, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is true, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no intimidation or pressure.

The 17th through 19th of the decision of the first instance is as follows.

(C) Part 1) Each of the instant articles revealed that: (a) 34 of the 62 persons subject to cash clearing in the E-district project consented to the Plaintiff; (b) 7 of the said persons revoked their consent and the Plaintiff was disqualified as the Plaintiff at present. (c) The following circumstances are revealed in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 22, 51, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 18; and (c) the testimony of the first instance trial witness L testimony and the fact inquiry reply to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of this Court; and (c) the purport of the entire arguments.