1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

이 법원에서 추가한 예비적 ^청구에 따라, 피고는...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following judgments as to the conjunctive arguments added by the plaintiff in this court. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second 15th 15th 2th 15th 2015 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) read “the Plaintiff and the Defendant on April 1, 2015” as “the Plaintiff’s loan development (hereinafter “loan development”) on April 1, 2015,” and the Plaintiff’s loan development (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on a turnkey basis from that date to 4th 25th 25th 4th 205.

Part IV through 28 of the decision of the court of first instance are as follows.

“The Plaintiff, on September 21, 2015, changed the subject of the instant business agreement from the Defendant to the Plaintiff and changed the terms and conditions of the payment of the purchase price to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the first amendment agreement”).

b)in accordance with Section 17 of the first instance judgment, the following is added:

[4) As for the amount provisionally seized in the existing architectural design office, the plaintiff and the defendant share 50% each of them and deposit them with 50% each according to the result of the lawsuit.

The following is added to the sixth 20th of the judgment of the first instance court. "The case of provisional attachment of fenced building on March 1, 2000 shall be the defendant's share of daily worth, and the excess shall be the plaintiff's share.

Provided, That where the amount of litigation is less than KRW 00,000,000, the date shall be borne.

In addition, the defendant can cooperate with the plaintiff in the lawsuit related to the construction of a building so that the plaintiff can participate in the lawsuit.

"(1)" portion of the first instance judgment from 10th to 11th 3th 10th 10th 19th 11th 3th 3th 2006 is as follows. "(A) Even if the record (3) presented by the Plaintiff as the ground for the Defendant’s demand for increase of KRW 25 billion, the Defendant would not sell the land unless the purchase price is increased.