1. The appeal by the counterclaim defendant is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the counterclaim Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) under Chapter 5 of the first instance judgment, the following is added to the part concerning the reasons for the first instance judgment, except for the following additional determination as to the matters asserted by the counter-party in the first instance judgment; and (b) under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this shall be cited.

[Supplementary Provisions] In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the sum of the amounts paid by the counter-party to the communications company was 7,987,838, can be acknowledged.

[Additional Determination] The counter-defendant asserts that the policy indicated in Eul's evidence 6 (i.e., the customer's complaint to the head office call center on the grounds of the non-performance of the service or commitment of the counter-resident, and that at least KRW 100,000,000 at a time 2,000,000 should be subtracted from the fee to be paid by the counter-party to the counter-party to the counter-party to the counter-party to the counter-party to the contract. The counter-party to the contract that the non-party to the counter-party to the contract should not be recognized as well as LG, the part receiving the payment and charge (9,025,548 won), and the part deducting the loss of the device (80,000 won) cannot be recognized.

In light of the fact that a junior administrative officer, etc. enters the gist of the pleading in the protocol, but the matters concerning confessions shall be clearly stated, and the presiding judge shall affix his/her name and seal to the protocol and allow interested parties to file an objection and file an objection, it shall be deemed that the contents of the pleading have a strong probative power to the effect that the contents of the pleading are true, unless there are other special circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da6367, Apr. 13, 201). With respect to the instant case, it is reasonable for the counter-defendant to have agreed on the policy indicated in the evidence No. 6, and to have agreed on the documents settled in the evidence No. 2, as well as the statement of pleading No. 12 in the court of first instance.