1. According to the counterclaim that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) filed by this court, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) may take place.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the plaintiff's claim on the merits is as follows. The part which appears to be an obvious error or clerical error in the judgment of the court of first instance is corrected or used, and the attached Table 3, which is a mistake in calculating the sum of the settlement amount and the collection amount, of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be replaced by the attached Table 2, and except for addition of the judgment on the part which the plaintiff is particularly disputing the grounds for appeal as set forth in paragraph 2 below, it shall be cited as it is the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall

Correctioned Parts

(a) Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the March 9, 2013 portion “1,9.5 million won in September 1, 2013, KRW 8.5 million in October and November 2013, KRW 9 million in December 2013, KRW 9 million in September 2013, KRW 19 million in October 2013, KRW 8.5 million in November 2013, and KRW 19 million in December 2013”

B. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment of the first instance, “from September 9, 2013” and “from September 2013, 2013,” which was used by the third and third of the judgment of the first instance, shall be divided into the parts of “the Defendant” through “from September 201 to 7.”

In accordance with the instant settlement agreement by February 2015, the Defendant shall receive KRW 523,791,675 from the Plaintiff as shown in attached Table 3, as in attached Table 3. It is recognized that only KRW 398,97,557 has not been recovered from February 2013 to February 2015. Meanwhile, the Defendant was to receive KRW 9,326,630 out of the fixed value-added tax for the second period of the hotel business of the instant hotel business in March 17, 2015 (Evidence 16-2), and there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant should deduct the amount of the refund from the settlement amount. Accordingly, the settlement amount that the Defendant is to receive from the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant settlement agreement is not payable to the Plaintiff, against KRW 115,487,48 (=523,79,79, 797, 397, 797, 397, 7575).

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The plaintiff's assertion is summary of this case.