Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff who is ordered to pay below.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance, within the scope of the judgment of this court, accepted all the plaintiff's claims against co-defendants of the first instance court, and dismissed part of the claims against the defendant and the remainder.

The plaintiff appealed against this part of the judgment against the plaintiff, and the defendant and the co-defendants of the court of first instance did not appeal against each part of the judgment against them, and the part of the claim against co-defendants of the court of first instance was separated and finalized.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of the judgment of the court of first instance) is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

In the second instance judgment of the first instance court, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and Defendant B, “Defendant B” and “Defendants” in the third instance judgment are considered to be “Codefendants of the first instance court,” respectively.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance from 3rd to 5rd 1st 1st 1st 1st 2st 2st 2st 2st 5th 2st 2st 2st 2st 2st 1st 2st 2st

3. On the 10th of the judgment of the first instance, each of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 1st of the 10th of the

On the five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 5th line of boundary contract is regarded as a novation contract.

3. The table of the judgment of the court of first instance in a part used again, between 20 and 7, 14.

3.(c)

1) At the end of November 18, 2017, the first instance trial co-defendant 560,321,074 won (hereinafter “instant electronic bill bond”) against the Plaintiff as of November 18, 2017, the summary of the Defendant’s defense is as follows.

A) A claim for the price of goods (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim for the price of goods”) and KRW 209,435,530, and the instant claim for the price of goods (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”) together with the instant electronic bill claim.