1. Of the counterclaims in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that orders payment below.

1. The first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim respectively.

Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed against the counterclaim, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the counterclaim part of the defendant.

2. The reasons why the court uses this part of the facts of recognition and relevant laws are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the same is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The reason why the court uses this part of the defendant's argument is 4-A of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Determination

A. The reason why the court uses this part of the legality of the termination of the contract of this case is not to add the following contents to the end of the contract, and Article 3 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

B. 1) Since it is identical to that set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“3) If so, the instant contract cannot be deemed to have been lawfully terminated.

A person shall be appointed.

B. The reason why the court uses the part concerning the claim for penalty in this part is set forth in Article 4 of the judgment of the first instance.

B. 1) Since it is identical to the statement in paragraph (1), it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. C. The Defendant’s summary of the claim is as follows: (a) the Defendant sought payment of KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff as part of compensation for damages, such as the cost of entering into the instant contract and the cost of preparing the instant F Camp; and (b) site visit expenses incurred by the Defendant for the preparation of the instant F Camp; and (c) employee benefit expenses.

2. As seen earlier, the head of the Busan District Education Office notified the Defendant of the termination of the contract of this case, however, the claim for the termination of the contract of this case cannot be deemed a legitimate exercise of the right of termination, or against the principle of good faith.