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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a legal entity engaged in advertising management and advertising agency business, and the defendant is engaged in gas safety short-term sales business.

B. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to distribute the Defendant’s business promotional leaflets to each household located in the Maritime Daegu apartment complex B, each of the households located in the Maritime Daegu apartment.

(hereinafter “instant advertising contract”). C.

The Plaintiff distributed all 8,100 copies on December 30, 2015, but the Defendant did not pay the above advertising price.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 7, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that both the plaintiff and the non-party C distributed 8,100 copies of the above leaflet, and all of the wages for the distribution of the above leaflet C were paid. The defendant asserts that he did not pay the price unfairly.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not faithfully implement the distribution of the leaflet under the instant advertising contract. Thus, the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay the price under the said contract.

3. We examine the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to prove that the Plaintiff failed to perform the instant advertising contract, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 405,00 won under the advertising contract of this case (=8,100 won x 50 won) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from December 31, 2015, which is the day following the day when the defendant performs the obligation under the advertising contract of this case until December 15, 2017, which is the day when the decision of the court of first instance is rendered by the defendant as to the existence and scope of the obligation under the advertising contract of this case, and the damages for delay calculated from the next day to the day when the obligation is fully paid.

The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from December 29, 2015, but the Defendant shall pay the advertising price in this case on December 29, 2015.