1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The following facts of the recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be admitted in the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) there is a statement of evidence Nos. 1 to 8 (including both paper numbers);

The Defendant, under the trade name of “D Private Teaching Institutes, operated the English Private Teaching Institutes, concluded a contract with E (E) Co., Ltd., and decided to convert the English Private Teaching Institutes operated by the Defendant into F language Private Teaching Institutes (hereinafter “G”).

B. The defendant and the non-party company are responsible for all operating expenses incurred by the defendant in the above business agreement, such as expenses for remodeling, promotion, marketing, and test of existing facilities, and the non-party company provided management organization and operational know-how comprised of brand right and experts.

C. C, an employee of the non-party company, indicated the Defendant’s plans and schedule for promotion and promotion of H and G promotion, and methods of production and promotion of promotional complexes, etc., and ordered the Plaintiff, who engages in the advertising planning business, etc. under the trade name “I” to publicize G around January or February 2013, ordering the Plaintiff to publish the promotional leaflets amounting to KRW 9,743,80.

The Plaintiff produced and supplied the promotional leaflets to the Defendant, and issued each electronic tax invoice of KRW 10,00 on March 1, 2013, KRW 7,494,30 on March 11, 2013, KRW 2,139,50 on March 19, 2013, and KRW 50 on March 19, 2013.

E. On February 25, 2013, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 110,00,000, KRW 248,000 on March 27, 2013, and KRW 1,00,00 on May 22, 2013.

F. Around January 23, 2014, the Defendant closed down a fish driving school as it did not recruit students while opening and operating G. Around January 23, 2014, the Defendant discarded it while keeping it in a warehouse without using all the former guidance supplied by the Plaintiff.

G. On the other hand, C requested an agency to directly distribute the promotional prior complex and publish newspapers to promote G promotion, and the Defendant paid the expenses directly to the agency.

2. The arguments of the Parties and their implications.