1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

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

The defendants of the claim are the defendants.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as follows: (a) in addition to the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants consider each of the allegations in this court as the grounds for appeal, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, (c) it is cited including

2. Additional determination on the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion that the judgment of the court of first instance that rendered a judgment invalidating part of the penalty under Article 12 (1) 1 of the Lectured Contract of this case was unlawful, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants violated the obligation to provide a video lecture under Article 6 (2) 1 and 2 of the Lectured Contract of this case with knowledge of the existence and amount of the penalty, and thus, the violation of the obligation to provide a video lecture under Article 6 (2) 1 and 2 of the Lectured Contract of this case cannot be deemed excessive. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that held that the part of the penalty, among the above penalty, which determined that the Plaintiff’s refund of the tuition fees paid by the Plaintiff, was null and void is unlawful. 2) In addition to the circumstances of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part, the whole purport of the arguments presented in the above evidence is revealed, and the judgment of first instance that determined that the part of the judgment of first instance, among the above penalty under Article 12 (1) 1 of the Lectured Contract of this case, is justifiable.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

① The penalty under Article 12(1)1 of the instant lecture contract is comprised of the refund of all instructors’ fees that the Plaintiff received by the Plaintiff, and the payment of the amount equivalent to three times the amount calculated by multiplying the monthly average instructor fee by the number of months in the remainder of the contract.

② From August 1, 2014 to October 31, 2017, the Defendants’ validity date of the instant lecture contract.