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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “judgments on the defendant’s assertion” as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance

The evidence of the second 19th 6th 19th 6th amendment of the second 14-15th 19th 'C' in Seocho-gu Seoul as ‘C' in the second 8th 1st 8th 8th 'C' to ‘A' and the second 19th 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 'h 24-1, 2, and 3' to ‘W 7-9th 4th 'h ',' respectively.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that in relation to the service cost for the "Replacement of C's C's C's clean point", the plaintiff recognized the fact that the plaintiff provided the above service at the request of the defendant, but did not agree on the cost of KRW 1,056,000.

According to the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff’s calculation of C’s service cost of KRW 1,056,00 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) at the Defendant’s request on June 2012 is recognized as having been based on each of the following circumstances, i.e., the service cost of KRW 1,056,00 based on each of the above evidence, i.e., the service cost of KRW 250,000, construction cost of KRW 360,000 (i.e., 180,000 x 2 x 350,000), equipment cost of KRW 350,00,00, and the amount is not excessive. In full view of the Plaintiff’s transaction relationship and transaction period of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant may not have any objection to the service cost of KRW 1,00.