1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. On June 10, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into an advertising contract with the Defendant and posted an advertisement by setting the advertising price as KRW 1,540,000, monthly beauty in July 201 issued by the Plaintiff at the request of C working in the law office D operated by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the advertising price of KRW 1,540,00 and delay damages as stated in the claim.

2. We examine the judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 2. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to support that the defendant had worked in Eul as the plaintiff's assertion, and that the defendant had concluded an advertising contract with Eul using Eul as the chairperson of the law office Eul in light of the whole purport of the argument in the statement No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 2.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant in its conclusion is unfair, and thus the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is revoked and dismissed.