2. The lower court’s determination on the main defense of the Defendant Company’s main defense is consistent with the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following to the fourth seventh sentence of the judgment of the first instance. As such, the lower court’s determination is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

In full view of the purport of the arguments, i.e., evidence Nos. 6-1 and 2, the Plaintiff agreed to the effect that, upon accepting the instant case from the Defendant Company on May 21, 2015 (Seoul High Court 2014Na41989), “the delegating shall jointly and severally pay 16.5% of the principal and interest of the conciliation or the judgment as contingent remuneration, and the contingent remuneration shall be agreed against the Plaintiff.” (ii) After the conclusion of the instant 1 and 2 agreement, Defendant Company’s regular director agreed with the Plaintiff on November 13, 2015 on the reduction or payment method of contingent remuneration under the instant 1 agreement, and did not seem to have agreed with the Plaintiff on the fact that “the Plaintiff renounced the contingent remuneration or did not claim it pursuant to the instant 2 agreement,” the Plaintiff did not appear to have agreed on the fact that “the Plaintiff did not have any further agreed on the contingent remuneration agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company No. 2,” in light of the foregoing premise that the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 did not dispute over the instant agreement.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant company pursuant to the judgment of the first instance court of this case, among the extracting rights of this case, 1.