1. Of the part on the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is 7,669.

1. In the first instance court within the scope of the judgment of this court, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for damages and liquidated damages due to the cancellation of the contract as the principal claim, and the defendant filed a claim against the plaintiff for a counterclaim for the refund of advance payment and liquidated damages due to the cancellation of the contract. The court of first instance accepted part of the plaintiff's claim for damages, dismissed the claim for liquidated damages, and dismissed all of the defendant's claim for counterclaim.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for damages and counterclaims among the claims of the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the first instance.

2. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed the facts of recognition.

A. On April 15, 2013, the Defendant concluded a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for a “A national web site and mobile web site development project” (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The instant contract concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff was the contract amount of KRW 66,00,000 (including value-added tax) and the contract term was from April 15, 2013 to July 15, 2013.

The defendant paid 26,400,000 won to the plaintiff with advance payment.

B. The Defendant demanded a wide range of revisions on July 1, 2013 and September 25, 2013, when the Plaintiff had been developing under the instant contract.

The contents of the request for revision were mainly about the design of the web site.

On November 14, 2013, when the Plaintiff had been developing upon the Defendant’s request for revision, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rescission of the instant contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation.

C. The degree of progress of the Plaintiff’s business of developing the web site was 51.62% until the Defendant’s notice of termination of the contract was given.

The above web site of the defendant developed by the plaintiff was implemented with basic functions according to the terms of the contract of this case, and there are some deficiencies such as the composition of the Qua New Service and the design of the inside and on the screen.