This Court's use in this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following between the 7th and 4th of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court's use in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff received KRW 30,977,220 from the Defendant for the logistics agency service fee for November 2012. However, the Plaintiff appears to be a clerical error (i.e., 53,409 cases 】 580 won for each logistics agency service fee) and KRW 41,427,60 for the logistics agency service fee for December 2012 (i.e., 71,427 cases x 580 won) but did not receive the logistics agency service fee for January 2013. The Plaintiff’s main claim for the main claim and the first preliminary claim for the main claim are the obligation to guarantee the Plaintiff’s basic water volume for the first three months during the contract period, and the Defendant did not have the duty to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to the lack of basic water volume.

Accordingly, on January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff terminated the instant contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation, after notifying the Defendant in advance.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for the following damages caused to the plaintiff as the contract of this case is terminated as above due to the defendant's fault.

In the first place, if the contract of this case was properly implemented, the Plaintiff could obtain a performance benefit of at least KRW 870,00,000,00 as basic logistics cost (i.e., KRW 500,000 x 580 x 3 months) for three months from November 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013. Since the contract of this case was terminated, the Plaintiff could not obtain it as a result of the termination of the contract of this case, it was passive damage of KRW 870,00,000.