1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance are as follows, given that the reasons for the first instance judgment are the same as the reasons for the second instance judgment, except for the second instance judgment.

2. Parts in height:

A. The fifth and fourth parallel of the judgment of the first instance are as follows: “Masan” is as “Masan”; “from December 12, 2012 to December 12, 2013” means “258,00,000 won”; “from December 12, 2013” means “250,000 won (= KRW 350,000,000 + KRW 50,000 + KRW 42,00,000)” means “258,00,000,000 won (= KRW 350,000,000 – KRW 50,000,000 - KRW 42,00,000,000).”

B. On November 4, 2013, the Defendant concluded a service contract with the two-approval Vietnam Co., Ltd., a company specialized in the implementation of the advisory contract of this case (hereinafter “the two-approval Vietnam”) and the 650,000,000 won on the vicarious implementation of the advisory contract of this case. Thus, the Defendant decided to cancel the contract of this case under the agreement with the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no reason to maintain the advisory contract of this case, and the Defendant concluded a service contract with L on March 27, 2014 with the same content as the advisory contract of this case, it is emphasized or additionally asserted that the advisory contract of this case was canceled.

In full view of the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1) above, in light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 3 as well as the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant advisory contract was rescinded on or around February 1, 2014, and there is no other evidence to support the conclusion of the instant advisory contract. (A) The point of time of concluding the instant advisory contract was around December 12, 2013 when the Defendant entered into a service contract with two transfers on behalf of the two transfers and the Defendant entered into the service contract with the Defendant on November 4, 2013, the “the selection of the construction works” was the core service duty.