1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant the payment of KRW 760,300,80 for service charges, ② penalty of KRW 152,060,160 for losses incurred due to the conclusion of an agreement on payment of the settlement of accounts or the termination of a service contract, and ② the payment of damages for delay.

On the other hand, the first instance court rejected the claim for the payment of the agreed amount on the ground that the settlement payment agreement cannot be acknowledged, and rejected the claim for the payment of the penalty on the ground that (1) the service price up to the time of the termination of the instant service contract is 760,300,800 won, and (2) there is no evidence that the instant service contract was terminated due to the reasons attributable to the defendant.

Since this Court appealed only to the defendant, the scope of the trial is limited to the claim portion of the service cost settlement under the above (1) which is the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance.

2. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the following items are used or added to the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the court of first instance’s claim for service costs. Accordingly, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 6, "Witness" in Part 15 shall be referred to as "the witness of the first instance court," and the "this decision" in Part 9, 16, as "the first instance court," respectively.

Part 8 of the 8th page 20 shall be added to the following part:

On the other hand, the defendant asserts to the effect that it is unfair to pay 50% of the service costs under the instant service contract since only part of the service work under the instant service contract was performed, such as the plaintiff's failure to perform the draft of written consent for the establishment of the association.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff appears to have faithfully performed the duties included in the scope of services under Article 3 of the instant service contract, and the Defendant’s assertion and submission.