1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion added in the trial as set forth in the following paragraph (2), and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Determination on the additional argument

A. The plaintiff's assertion was cancelled on or around September 2003 or around August 2004, as follows, so the defendant's claim for refund upon cancellation of the contract of this case is completed five years' extinctive prescription, and there is no cancellation refund and all other obligations against the defendant under the contract of this case.

1) On the receipt of bank branch receipts issued by the Plaintiff, stating the phrase “Ixa during the period of low time so it is automatically terminated if the Plaintiff did not make payments for not less than three months without good cause.” Thus, on September 2003, the instant mutual aid agreement should be deemed to have been automatically rescinded without the Plaintiff’s separate declaration of intention by the Defendant, failing to pay the mutual aid fees for not less than three months. 2) Even if a separate declaration of intention is necessary for the cancellation of the instant mutual aid agreement, the Plaintiff’s representative director expressed his intent to cancel the instant mutual aid agreement to the Defendant on August 2004, according to the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of the mutual aid fees, and the instant mutual aid agreement was terminated on August 2004.

B. According to the statement of Gap evidence No. 9 on the plaintiff's claim for cancellation around September 12003, it is difficult to conclude that the above statement was written on the receipt of the bank branch issued by the plaintiff's member B of the plaintiff around July 1994 and August 1994, even though the plaintiff stated the phrase "Hannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn'