2. In the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court stated that the court of first instance “as of November 201, 2017” was “as of November 2016.”

Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance to 8 pages 7 to 6 of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

We examine the ratio of 'B) and the ratio of 'B)'.

The sum of the service costs of each of the instant service contracts agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is KRW 47,50,000 (excluding value-added tax) as seen earlier. According to the result of the appraiser J of this Court’s entrustment to the appraiser J of this case, it is recognized that the Plaintiff has a fact equivalent to 35.1% of the work performed by the Plaintiff (the appraiser’s appraisal result is respected as long as the appraisal method, etc. is against the rule of experience or unreasonable, or otherwise is not so significantly erroneous and unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, 84615, 84622, 84639, Jan. 12, 2012); the original and the Defendant’s assertion that it is different from that of the former; the appraiser presented the appraisal result at a rate of KRW 31.9% to 38.3%; the average service rate of KRW 305% to KRW 3050,719,75).30

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the service cost of KRW 7,339,750, and the damages for delay from March 21, 2017, which is the day following the termination of each service contract of this case.

On the other hand, the evidence No. 27 is used.