1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

With respect to this case, this court's use is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of the corresponding parts as follows. Thus, this court cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "A Nos. 1 through 5" are "A No. 1, A No. 4-2, 3 (the establishment of the petition by testimony of witness D of the court of first instance is recognized), and A No. 5-1 through 3."

From No. 31 of the judgment of the first instance court, "No. 3 and No. 10 of the judgment of the first instance court" is "No. 4-2, 3, and No. 10 of the evidence No. 4-2, 10 of the judgment of the first instance (the "approval" column of the evidence No. 10 of the evidence No. 10 of the defendant's document No. 10 of the defendant's representative director's signature, circumstances very similar to the signature of No. 2 (Receipt) of the defendant's document No. 2,

Part 6 and 7 of the decision of the court of first instance are as follows: "The tax invoice was issued in the same amount as that of the resolution, the amount in the above disbursement resolution and the tax invoice was resolved", and the amount in the above disbursement resolution is as "amount in the above disbursement resolution".

Part 4 of the decision of the first instance court, the term "the contract of this case" in Part 14 shall be read as "the contract of this case".

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, the term "agreement" in Part 4 shall be "25,00,000 won".

The following shall be added between the five pages of the judgment of the first instance and the twenty-one.

In addition, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant’s operating loss equivalent to the operating loss during the period during which aggregate is operated by the Plaintiff’s unilaterally on the aggregate extraction site during which the said aggregate is operated (the Defendant, on November 11, 2013, stated on the date of pleading in the first instance trial, stated that “the average operating loss of approximately KRW 10 million per day between about 20 days and KRW 20 million is calculated as the amount of damage if it is calculated as the amount of damage.”

As the plaintiff entered, he is obligated to compensate for it.