The first instance judgment (excluding the portion withdrawn by reduction of claims), including the claims added by this court, shall be as follows:

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, except for the addition of "1,251,827,50 won" after the six-dimensional nine of the judgment of the first instance to "1,251,827,500 won"

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The reasoning for the judgment on a claim for return of unjust enrichment is as follows, except for the cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs.

(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). Following the 8th 10th 10th 10 of the judgment of the first instance, “any obligation to return” is added to [the above 287,842,50 won plus value-added tax] (=102,50,000 won + 112,175,000 won + 29,000 won + 3,000,000 won + 15,000,000 won + 15,000,000 won].

Under the 11th judgment of the first instance court, "for 70 defense rooms," "for 70 defense rooms, the defendant concludes a new sales contract (alternative contract) with respect to 70 defense rooms."

The second first instance judgment "2016" is regarded as "2017".

The 21st judgment of the first instance court's theory of the 21st judgment is as follows.

“. In the absence of special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 17,050,000 [=(3,00,000 + 12,50,000 + 12,50,000 + value-added tax)] and damages for delay. The part of the estimated amount of damages is the claimant under Article 6 of the terms of the instant agreement. In the event of nonperformance of the obligations under the instant agreement, Article 6 provides that the amount of damages related to the relevant obligations shall be compensated for as much as the amount related thereto if the obligations under the instant agreement are not fulfilled, which constitutes an estimated amount of damages.

Paragraph (3) shall apply to the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(The Plaintiff’s determination on the claim for the agreed amount (the conjunctive claim as to the predetermined amount of damages) is not accepted as the claim for each of the scheduled amounts of damages, since the agreement in this case was rescinded.