1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the article Nos. 136, 137, 1485, and 1486 of the list of the objects for which extradition is requested.

1. After remanding, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to deliver the goods indicated in the list of the list subject to the application for extradition, and the judgment of the first instance has partially accepted it, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against each of the losing parts.

In the trial before remanding, the Plaintiff added a claim seeking delivery of the goods listed in the list of the additionally requested extradition.

The court prior to remand changed the judgment of the first instance court, including the above additional claims, and dismissed the part demanding the delivery of goods in Nos. 136, 137, 1485, and 1486 among the lawsuits of this case, which ordered the Plaintiff to deliver to the Plaintiff the goods indicated as “as eligible” in the “liability” column of the attached Table among the goods listed in the list of the objects subject to the attached request for extradition, and video products listed in Nos. 5 and 6 of the attached Table, and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against each losing part, and the judgment of remand reversed and remanded the above dismissed part of the part against the Plaintiff and the part concerning the goods of the list No. 11 of the annexed extradition request. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal and the Defendant’s appeal were dismissed.

Therefore, the scope of the trial after remand is limited to the above dismissed part and the claim on the article No. 11 of the list of additional requests for extradition.

2. The following facts are not disputed between the parties or may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-6, Gap evidence 7-1 to 4, Eul evidence 17-1, Eul evidence 19, 20, Eul evidence 19, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

The plaintiff operated a video lending store with the trade name "C" in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, and D and E are established pursuant to Article 43 of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act (amended by Act No. 7131, Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply) and illegal video products by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, etc.