1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. On February 3, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a service agreement with the Defendant for shopping mall production and paid KRW 3,300,000 on February 7, 2012, and KRW 4,312,00 on October 31, 2012, but the Defendant did not provide the services specified in the instant service agreement within the production period, including “the function of a purchase/sale manager” and “new game development”. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant service agreement was terminated on the ground of contractual breach, and the Defendant claimed the return of the service cost, totaling KRW 7,612,00,000, and delay damages therefrom.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s service contract on February 3, 2012 with the Defendant and the service cost of KRW 9,800,00 (in addition, KRW 2,940,000 among them, KRW 3,920,000 within three days after the contract was concluded, the intermediate payment of KRW 3,920,000, the remainder of KRW 2,940,00 after the completion of the production, within seven days after the completion of the production), the production period of two months, the contract period of 12 months (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

(2) The following facts are established: (a) the scope of the Defendant’s work under the instant contract is classified into the planning, design, and development of shopping mall for the production of shopping mall; (b) the development of shopping mall is the function of shopping mall (including a manager related to the sales of members); (c) the management of pop-up shop (including the output of information on members); (d) the management of members by group; (e) the purchase/sale manager’s function (including hosting and the marketing coordination function); and (c) the development of ebbbb games (including the development of new games; the application of events); and (d) the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,300,00 to the Defendant on February 7, 2012 under the instant service contract; and (e) the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 4,312,000 to the Defendant on October 31, 2012 under the instant service contract.

Pleadings shall be made in each entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1 to 23.