1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in excess of the money ordered to be paid below.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court shall dismiss “No. 2, 13, and 17,” “No. 3, 2014,” “No. 30, 2014,” “No. 14,” “building No. 3,” “No. 6, and “No. 27,” “No. 7,” “No. 6,” “No. 7,” and “the decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on May 27, 2015,” “No. 2,” “No. 4, 10, and “No. 11,” “No. 4, 10, 11,” “No. 14,” “No. 2,” and “No. 4, 201,” “No. 4, 10, 201,” and “No. 2, 2014,” and “No. 4, as stated in the judgment of the second instance.

2. Parts to be corrected by the trial;

A. The part of the first instance court’s decision Nos. 7, 2, 8, 4, and 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 14, 2, 2

4) In full view of no dispute over construction waste-related damage, or the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments, the Plaintiff left waste at the construction site of this case. On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid Samsung Asbestos Environmental Co., Ltd. KRW 5,000,000 on June 12, 2015 and KRW 5,350,000 on April 15, 2016 and ordered the said company to dispose of the said waste. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 10,350,000 to the Defendant + KRW 5,350,000 + KRW 5,350,000.5) At the same time, the Plaintiff’s 13 evidence of non-payment Nonindicted Co., Ltd. included the Plaintiff’s “15,00,000 in the transaction statement or rent set out by Samsung Asbestos Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff’s 15,205,000,000 for non-establishment and dissolution of the construction work.”