1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the appellate court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and except for the following portions, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance

The part of the first instance court’s 8 to 8th, “The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff seeks payment on the premise of the completion of duties under the instant service contract includes the purport of seeking reasonable remuneration on the premise of the performance of part of duties under the said contract.” This part of the “if the Plaintiff fails to complete all of the services under the instant service contract, it is seeking payment according to the percentage of the services performed by the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff failed to complete the services.”

2. The Defendant asserts that, inasmuch as the appellate court’s judgment stated that the instant service contract constitutes a contract aimed at completing a day in accordance with the characteristics of the PF loan and the terms and conditions of the instant service contract, the Defendant asserted that the instant service contract through the Plaintiff’s complaint and the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief on September 3, 2019 constituted a judicial confession as to the effect that the instant service contract aims to complete the business, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the instant service contract is a contract under which the Plaintiff would pay the service cost upon completing the contractual obligations, and that the right to claim remuneration in violation of the aforementioned provision cannot be acknowledged. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion does not have the nature of the delegated contract

Considering that there was no assertion to the effect that the right to claim remuneration is not recognized, the Defendant’s assertion regarding confession cannot be accepted.

The instant assertion argues to the effect that the Plaintiff should not be granted the right to claim reasonable remuneration, considering that the instant service contract has the nature of delegation contract.

In addition to the circumstances revealed in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff is in accordance with Article 2 (Service Purposes) of the instant service contract.