1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where the two pages 2, 12, 3, and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance are listed as follows (Provided, That the plaintiff of second page 3 is deemed to be "the defendant"), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“1. Determination as to the principal claim

A. On December 4, 2004, when the plaintiff resides in Ischeon-si B, the summary of the party's assertion: (a) applied for the defendant's Scar F service (hereinafter "the above contract") and used it by transferring it to Gangwon-si C around March 2007; and (b) again, the plaintiff made a director of Gangwon-do D and continued to use the Scar F service (hereinafter "the above contract") and there was no additional application for the Scar F service around August 12, 2007 (hereinafter "the above contract"); (c) around December 13, 2007, the plaintiff applied for the 15 Scar F service to operate it (hereinafter "the third contract").

Nevertheless, the defendant asserts that since December 13, 2007, based on the premise that the contract was entered into in two separate contracts, the defendant unfairly imposed charges of approximately KRW 2,003,339 for about six years and three months after December 13, 2007, and the plaintiff paid such charges. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment of KRW 2,03,339 to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the service was provided by entering into a three-time contract including the plaintiff and the two-time contract, and that the service was duly charged.

B. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant was unfairly charged with service charges and paid, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and instead, in light of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, and 8, the Plaintiff entered into two contracts through Central Information and Communications Technology Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s Scarp service distributors around August 12, 2007.