1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the plaintiff’s additional determination as to the assertion added by this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. On the video vehicles supplied by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff used an electronic sign board, not a letter but an electronic sign board, on April 25, 2018 and May 10, 2018, and the Plaintiff presented a written estimate (Evidence A(Evidence A(8)) to the Defendant. As such, the contract price for the video vehicles ought to be determined on the basis of the LED rent for vehicles (one ton: KRW 780,000 per day, KRW 2.5 tons per day: KRW 996,00 per day) rather than the vehicle electric sign board rent among the criteria for the payment of the election expenses provided by the election commission.

B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 7 and 8, among the criteria for the preservation of election expenses provided by the National Election Commission for LD, the part concerning LED electric sign board rent for vehicles is as shown in the attached Table [Attachment Table], the Plaintiff’s written estimate (Evidence No. 8) applied the daily unit price of KRW 780,000 to the video device (LED) of a video vehicle with 2.5 tons, 96,000 won to the video device (LED) of a video vehicle with the daily unit price of KRW 16,50,000 per ton of the vehicle as the cause of the complaint’s claim, but the Plaintiff calculated the video device (LED) as KRW 2.5 million by asserting that the price of the vehicle with 2.5 tons per ton of the vehicle was KRW 2,400,000,000 per to KRW 1.5 million per ton of the vehicle, and the Plaintiff calculated the unit price of KRW 1.385,500,0000 per 1.