1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who exceeds the following amount ordering payment.

1. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit, and partly accepted the Defendant’s claim on the counterclaim, and the Plaintiff appealed on the part against the Plaintiff among the part of the counterclaim claim, and the Defendant did not appeal. Therefore, the scope of this court’s trial is limited to the part of the counterclaim claim in the judgment of the first instance court.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the plaintiff added the following "3. Additional Judgment" to the argument that the plaintiff added in the court of first instance, and the "attached Form No. 4." cited in the "paragraph (c) of "2. Recognition" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the "Attachment No. 1" as stated in the "Attachment No. 4. Evaluation Table," and "3. Determination as to the counterclaim claim" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 6. 9 through No. 7. 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance) is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except as stated in the [Attachment No. 2], and this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(3) The Plaintiff’s ground for appeal is not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid in cash the above facts to the Defendant on November 13, 2012, KRW 500,000 on December 26, 2012, KRW 80,000 on March 30, 2013, and KRW 1,000,000 on April 30, 2013, and KRW 1,000,000 on April 30, 2013, by deeming the evidence submitted by the first instance court to the court of the first instance as well as the evidence presented by the court of the first instance to the court of the first instance. However, the Plaintiff’s additional judgment is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion solely based on the evidence stated in the evidence indicated in subparagraph 13, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

4. The main portion [Attachment 1] The fact that the Plaintiff repaid KRW 1,00,000 on April 6, 2015 can be recognized according to the statement of evidence A of the attached appropriation amount calculation table. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is attached.