Of the part of the counterclaim claim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant) who exceeds the money ordered to be paid below.

1. On February 28, 2019, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the absence of the obligation to pay fees under the self-management entrustment agreement. On the contrary, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of fees of KRW 233,530,000 based on the above agreement and delayed damages.

The first instance court sentenced the plaintiff to pay 182,215,00 won and delayed damages, and confirmed that there is no obligation of the plaintiff exceeding the above money, upon the counterclaim claim.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed against the defendant among the counterclaim part, and the plaintiff appealed only to the delayed damages of KRW 16,565,00 among the counterclaim part against the plaintiff, and only to the delayed damages of KRW 16,565,00.

Therefore, the scope of the court's judgment is limited to the claim of KRW 51,315,00 among the counterclaim part and the claim of late damage of KRW 16,565,00 and the claim of late damage of KRW 16,565,00.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. 51,315,000 won among the counterclaim part and the right to claim a delayed loss;

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, at the highest point, vicariously performed the overall sales as a single sales organization consisting of the chief of headquarters, team leader, and team members in order to conduct the overall sales as a single sales organization in accordance with the instant agreement. As such, the Defendant performed the overall “general sales organization” of a single sales organization during the period during which the instant agreement remains in existence, all the sales contracts vicariously performed by the Plaintiff as a general

Therefore, the Plaintiff should pay to the Defendant the same amount of fees as stated in the purport of the claim for all sales contracts that the Plaintiff performed by June 14, 2019.

2) The Plaintiff’s business organization was the organization of the Defendant as the head of headquarters and the organization of the E as the head of headquarters, and two business organizations operated sales agency businesses separately.

The plaintiff until June 14, 2019.