1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of “a judgment on the Defendant’s additional assertion” as provided in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's additional assertion

A. The Defendant’s additional assertion 1) asserted that the amount of the service charges deducted from the erroneous calculation of the period is calculated as KRW 22,857,140 by adding up the period of “from February 16, 2010 to February 28, 2010.” However, on February 12, 2010, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to extend the period of the instant service contract, for the extension of the period of “from February 16, 2010 to February 28, 2010, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the intent to claim that only the amount of the service charges incurred from March 1, 2010 to “from February 16, 2010 to February 28, 2010” and the Defendant did not claim that the period of the contract be calculated as KRW 205,000,000,0000,000 from February 16, 2010 to 205.

However, in the work book, C is written to work for 100,000 days in May 2010.

Therefore, C should deduct the service price corresponding to 9 days (19 days - 10 days) for which C does not work unless the defendant's approval is obtained, even if C was at work only 10 days in the relevant month or was at work during the period of not going to work.

3) The Plaintiff asserted to deduct the service cost of a non-resident supervisor from the service cost (c) was calculated as KRW 22,857,140 if the non-resident supervisor was to work for 1.4 months (31 days in the number of days), and then the service cost was calculated as KRW 22,857,140.