1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Seoul Central District Court on April 2014.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the instant case 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 as otherwise determined in paragraph (2).

On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, “in filing an application” in the first instance judgment, the part of “the legitimate part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation among the instant lawsuits” shall be deleted, and the part of “the legitimate part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation” in the 6th page 7 through 19 shall be amended to “2.” and the 6th page 20 section “3.” shall be amended to “2.”

Then, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance alleged to the effect that "the plaintiff alleged to the effect that "the advisory contract of this case was concluded on March 2, 2009," but at the time of the plaintiff's own filing of the lawsuit of this case, "the advisory contract of this case was concluded on March 2, 2009, but in fact A was entered into on June 30, 2009, when the delegation contract of this case was entered into with attorneys F and one other" (the plaintiff's complaint). The defendant also asserted to the effect that "the date of the conclusion of the advisory contract of this case was "the date of March 2, 2009" or "the date of the conclusion of the advisory contract of this case on December 10, 2017" was "the date of the conclusion of the advisory contract of this case on March 2, 200 or "the date of the conclusion of the advisory contract of this case on March 2, 2009" was "the date of the conclusion of the advisory contract of this case 20."

Furthermore, even if the instant advisory contract was concluded on March 2, 2009, and the Defendant representative at that time was the J.