1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the basic facts are as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance (which is the basis for recognition) is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the part of the judgment of the

A person shall be appointed.

F. On the other hand, on November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) all claims for service costs of KRW 300 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum after the payment date under the instant service agreement, and delegated the right to notify the assignment of claims to the Defendant, the obligor, to the Intervenor. Accordingly, the Intervenor notified the Defendant of such assignment of claims around November 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, Eul's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The court's explanation of this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment of the first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant in the 6th parallel 7th parallel "the defendant" is "the plaintiff," and the plaintiff in the 9th parallel "the defendant" is "the defendant," respectively.

The "Witness" in the 7th sentence shall be the "Witness of the first instance court".

Part 1 of the "EN" shall be added to the following in Part 2 of Part 9:

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, as the Plaintiff and the instant service contract agreed to reduce the service cost to KRW 200 million, even if the Plaintiff’s claim for service cost is recognized, the amount of unpaid service cost should be calculated based on KRW 200 million.

In full view of the statement No. 3 of the evidence No. 3 and the witness C of the first instance trial, this case between the original defendant and the defendant.