1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and the original defendant’s argument emphasized or added by this court is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following “3. additional determination”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 2nd page 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part which is removed or used after being cut off “Symanber” shall be deemed to be “data”; “the total amount of the fund” in the last 2nd page of the same 3rd 9 is to be “a certain amount of the fund (where the total target achievement rate of the team is more than 90% and less than 91%, 10% for each 1% thereafter, 10% for each 1%, 10% thereafter, and 10% or more for each 10%), “No. 1 and 2 evidence 9” shall be deemed to be “No. 1,2, 15, 16, and 17 evidence”; “No. 4th 19, “3. decision” shall be deemed to be “C. decision”; and “No. 5th 1,” respectively, shall be deemed to be “date of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that "a company is a company" shall be construed as "a company, or a financial authority or a mobile network operator shall file an application for a paper subscription with him/her, shall fill out documents, such as an application for subscription, or shall photograph documents, such as an application for subscription, in tables, in smartphones and tables, and shall provide him/her with a fashion to keep and process them."

Parts 3 through 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be completed as follows:

“C. The Plaintiff was engaged in the business for the purpose of concluding orders by forming a team C, D, E, F, and the Plaintiff’s team was set at 44.8% of the Plaintiff’s team allocation ratio on the result of its operation for one year, 2014. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s team members, who were affiliated with the Plaintiff, was set at 4.8% of the Plaintiff’s team allocation ratio. On the other hand, the target amount of the interests of options in 2014, the amount of the Plaintiff’s operating for one year, and the amount of the shares related to the solution (excluding the amount of contracts for pure services only from the total amount of contracts, but excluding the amount of contracts for pure services only) as a result of its operations during 2014.