1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the damage of interior expenses shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

The following facts are clear in the records in the process of the case after the remanding the case.

On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant and C seeking compensation for damages arising from a tort.

On September 12, 2013, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing part of the plaintiff's claim by recognizing the defendant and C's liability for damages, and appealed by the plaintiff, defendant and C.

On December 3, 2014, the court of the first instance before remanded the claim for return of unjust enrichment based on a lease agreement to the defendant on December 3, 2014, thereby recognizing the defendant and C's liability for damages with regard to the claim for damages by modifying the first instance court's judgment following the expansion of the plaintiff's purport, and sentenced the defendant and C to the amount of damages totaling KRW 83,102,745 of business suspension damage corresponding to passive damages and human test expenses corresponding to positive damages, but in consideration of the plaintiff's fault ratio (50%), the court ordered the defendant and C to pay damages amounting to KRW 57,014,517 [= KRW 30,926,289, KRW 83,102,745] and delay damages amounting to KRW 57,01,517, respectively.

On December 22, 2017, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the compensation for damages concerning the interior expenses among the claims for damages, and dismissed the appeal concerning the remainder.

In accordance with the scope of the judgment of the court after remand, the subject of the judgment of the court after remand is limited to the plaintiff's claim for damages equivalent to the expenses of the appeal, which is active damage, among the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant, and the remainder was finalized by the judgment of the court

(The Plaintiff’s claim against C was separated and finalized as C did not file an appeal). After remanding the case, this Court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts of the lower court’s judgment is the same as the statement in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for addition or replacement as follows. Therefore, it is true in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.