2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff asserted that e-learning was supplied by the Defendant with e-learning (E-earing and education), and paid a total of KRW 4,362,00 for its production costs. However, the Defendant did not properly perform the duties that the Defendant should perform, for the purpose of causing damage to the Plaintiff in the course of supplying the above e-learning.

As a result, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant: ① KRW 4,362,00 for the production cost of the above solution; ② KRW 25,920,00 for each transaction that the Plaintiff would have incurred while replacing the solution manufactured by the Defendant with another solution after the completion of the lawsuit (=36,00 for each transaction x monthly average sales x 20 times x 36 months for each transaction x 36 months); ③ the Defendant’s delay in the production of the above solution x KRW 800,00 for the Plaintiff’s implementation of similar functions; ④ the Plaintiff’s three-day personnel expenses 7,650,00 for the Plaintiff’s three-day personnel expenses x 7,650,00 for the Plaintiff; ⑤ The Defendant had an obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred to the Defendant under the contract and compensation for damages incurred to the Defendant 50,500,500 for the above operation of the solution , and thus, the Defendant had a duty to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred to the Defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 23, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on September 6, 2012 for e-learning solution supply (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with the Defendant, which is to be supplied with e-learning solution amounting to KRW 4,257,00 (including value-added tax). ② As for the instant supply contract, e-learning solution service, etc.