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

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 9 to No. 12, No. 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance) in addition to adding or adding the judgment on the matters asserted by the defendant in the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. On the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the “written testimony” in the 17th part of the judgment of the court of first instance is added, and then the “part of witness B” is added.

C. On the 7th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “each description” in the 7th page 18 shall be written “each description and part of witness B of the party trial.”

No. 9 of the first instance judgment, the part of "No. 8" in the second instance judgment shall be written with "No. 8, 11".

E. On the 3rd page of the first instance judgment, the part regarding “(1) through (7)” is deleted.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion was unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff and entered into between the Defendant and the Defendant. Examining Articles 1, 3, and 6 of the instant contract, the instant contract did not specify the method of payment, including advance payment. As such, the Defendant’s mistake exists regarding the method of payment, and this constitutes an error as to the important part of the content of the legal act.

Accordingly, the defendant's contract of this case is revoked by service of legal brief dated November 5, 2014.

B. In order to determine whether there was an error in the declaration of intention under Article 109 of the Civil Act, the perception of the person who made the statement and the fact that there was no fact that there was no fact at the time of the juristic act should be considered to be a case where it is against the perception of the person who made the statement and the fact that there was no fact that there was no fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da30271, Jul. 26, 2013), barring any special circumstance where the authenticity of the document is acknowledged, the declaration of intention of the party is made in accordance with the