1. The part against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) among the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. As to the part of the underlying facts, the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, some of them shall be added or cut as follows:

Then, “the Defendant was working as the publishing team leader at the TPP by May 2012, and the Plaintiff also took lectures at the TPP by May 5, 2012.” On June 5, 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an instructor contract with P Co., Ltd. that operates the PO and moved from the PO to the POE. The Plaintiff, by May 2012, 2012, issued the publication at the TPP’s team team as the team leader, and transferred the publication to the POE. The Plaintiff added the following: (a) on publication by May 2012, 2012, the Defendant transferred the publication at the TPP’s team as the team leader, and (b) transferred the publication, and (c) concluded the publication right contract with the Defendant:

Each entry of No. 5 of the first instance judgment 5-15 of the 5th 14-15 of the 5th 15 of the 5th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 7, A’s evidence No. 67-1 through 7, A’s evidence No. 68, and B’s evidence No. 6.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. As to the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. As to the assertion that there is no benefit in confirmation as to the defense prior to the merits, the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) As to the assertion that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was abuse of right, the Defendant asserts to the purport that it constitutes an abuse of right, and thus, constitutes an abuse of right, and thus, constitutes an unlawful act.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant, including evidence Nos. 3, 44, 107, is insufficient to recognize that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was reached on March 12, 2014.