2. The summary of the parties’ arguments;

3. The judgment on the main claim

A. The reasoning for the judgment on whether the Plaintiff completed the implementation of the instant service agreement is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) The part to be removed or added shall be 18 pages 6, and the part to be removed shall be 18.

Part 9 14 (Reasons for Recognition) add “Evidence 19, 22, and 19 of A” to the 14th page (Reasons for Recognition).

The rate of liquidated damages and the rate of 10th page 10 shall be calculated as the “rate of liquidated damages”.

Part 11: 11. The following shall be added:

However, while entering into the instant service contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant received the contract guarantee issued by the Korea Software Financial Cooperative (hereinafter “Financial Cooperative”) as the contract deposit from the Plaintiff, and the contract bond shall be forfeited to the Defendant on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance. Since the contract bond has the nature of penalty against default, it shall be offset against the Plaintiff’s obligation to compensate for delay and the Plaintiff’s obligation to compensate for losses, and if the contract bond has the nature of the amount of liquidated damages, it shall be offset against the Plaintiff’s obligation to compensate for losses, but if the contract bond has the nature of the amount of liquidated damages, it shall be offset against the amount corresponding to the liquidated damages and the amount exceeding the contract bond pursuant to

Part 14 by inserting "Evidence A, Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 47 through 53, and No. 1," the evidence set forth below.

Part 16. 7. See the following:

According to Article 16(1), (3), and (4) of the General Terms and Conditions of the Technical Service Contract incorporated into the instant service contract, and Article 65(1) through (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to delete or reduce specific service items.