1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is that the reasoning for this Court is identical to that for the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where each “D” is applied to Q as “ Q”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion 1) since the plaintiff provided the service to the defendant in accordance with the service contract of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 4,189,472,100 (including value-added tax) as stated in the service contract of this case. However, the defendant's payment of KRW 2,972,151,406 (including value-added tax) among them to the plaintiff. However, since 3,366,151,406, among them, KRW 394,00,000 was used in paying the defendant's obligations to the other creditors upon the plaintiff's request after the plaintiff received it, the above KRW 394,00,000 should be excluded from the service payment that the plaintiff received.

) Since full payment was made, the remaining KRW 1,217,320,694 (=4,189,472,100 - 2,972,151,406) is obligated to pay additional KRW 504,060 out of the remaining claims for services, N has received a seizure and collection order as to KRW 455,100,00,000 from the above remaining claims for services, and the plaintiff has received a seizure and collection order as to KRW 258,160,524 from the defendant for the remaining services except for the above collection amount (=1,217,320,694 - 504,060,170 - 45,100,170 - 2) and damages for delay. Thus, the plaintiff can not claim for cancellation or termination of the service contract of this case without any legal grounds for the cancellation or termination of the service contract of this case.