1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding “additional judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The table at the lower part of the three pages of the judgment of the first instance court, and at the lower part of the seven pages, three “G” respectively are raised as “M”.

The 16.7's numerical value "16.7's vehicle capacity" among "the distribution details of each company" among "the distribution details of each company" in the fourth top of the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be changed to "16.4", and the distribution details of each company shall be changed to "B-1" mark.

From the fourth side of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant’s “Defendant” in 5,7, and 12 shall be respectively dismissed from “Plaintiff,” and the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiffs” in 4, 12, and 5, respectively, shall be dismissed from “Defendant”.

At the bottom of the five pages of the first instance judgment, the "Evidence Nos. 1, 4, 9, 14 of the first instance judgment" is "Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 14 of the first instance judgment".

On 7 pages 9 of the first instance court's decision, "Evidences 1 through 40 of the first instance court's judgment" are "Evidences 1 through 50 of the first instance court's judgment."

From 7 pages to 8 pages of the first instance judgment, 5 up to 8 pages shall be as follows:

"On the other hand, according to Gap evidence No. 10, in the course of reporting the results of cleaning conducted by M, H and J during the year 2012 by dividing them into the results of cleaning conducted by each group of cleaning businesses, it is recognized that there was an excessive and reduced report, etc., but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the sum of the results of cleaning conducted by the above three companies was erroneous, such circumstance alone does not change the result of calculating the amount of excreta dividends among the remaining companies, including the plaintiff.

In addition, the total cleaning volume of Gyeyang-gu in 2012 is described as Gap's certificate 2 (cleaning agency contract) and Eul certificate 3 (Sanitary excreta treatment improvement plan for septic tank cleaning company) as 93,932 tons. However, Gap evidence 35 (Notice of Information Disclosure) is 93,188.571 tons.