1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

Defendant B, .

The facts below are without dispute between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence of Nos. 1, 3 through 7, Eul evidence of No. 1, 3 and 3 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

[1] The Plaintiff is a broadband service company (VN, VL-Ded Network) that operates a credit card transaction approval agency business.

The Ban service refers to the service of building and providing networks and collecting and keeping sales slips so that it can process affairs such as credit card inquiries, payment approval, and settlement of payments by transmitting credit cards, cash receipts, etc. to credit card companies or the National Tax Service.

Defendant B is the actual operator of E registered as the Plaintiff’s service agency, and Defendant D is the representative of E’s business registration, and Defendant C is in charge of franchise store business and agency management, etc. while working in the Plaintiff’s business division from November 200 to October 2012. From August 2000 to September 201, G was in charge of the Plaintiff’s business management, etc., and was in charge of franchise store business and agency management, etc. as the head of the Plaintiff’s business division from August 200 to September 2012.

[2] Around September 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on cash receipts transaction.

Defendant C, around June 2008, obtained information from H, where F had the head of F’s computer room, that F had a plan to select a company for credit card transaction, and the Plaintiff’s management was promoting a contract to provide a credit card transaction service to F (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the Plaintiff’s management was promoted as a result of the Plaintiff’s business activities of the Plaintiff’s corporate business division (hereinafter “corporate business”). However, even though the instant contract was implemented as a result of the Plaintiff’s corporate business division (hereinafter “corporate business”), the said company was able to arrange the conclusion of the instant contract and acting as an agent for the said company.