1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, with the exception of the rejection of evidence No. 15 (E’s factual confirmation) contrary to the facts acknowledged by the court of first instance for the same reason as “the ground for rejection of evidence No. 15 (E’s factual confirmation)”, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of first instance.

2. The grounds for rejection of Gap evidence No. 15 and the defendant as shown in the plaintiff's argument that the continuous delegation contract for the refund of customs duties was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant are without dispute, Eul evidence No. 15 and Eul evidence No. 15 and the testimony of the first instance court witness Eul comprehensively take into account the overall purport of arguments, namely, ① if there was a continuous delegation contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on the refund of customs duties, the total amount of fees for the refund of customs duties equivalent to approximately two years shall be determined and the payment of the total amount is deemed to have been made. On the contrary, the defendant calculated the small amount of fees for each application for the refund of customs duties as of February 24, 2016 and April 7, 2016, and it is difficult to view that a continuous delegation contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded on May 3, 2016. Rather, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff individually delegated an application for the refund of customs duties to the defendant, in light of the following circumstances:

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.