1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended at the trial by the plaintiff's incidental appeal, is as follows:

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around January 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract on the management of personal information (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, a member of the Plaintiff, with the content that the Defendant shall entrust the Plaintiff with the management of personal information acquired in the course of operating the private teaching institute and pay the entrusted management cost of KRW 95,00 per month as remuneration.

B. The Plaintiff installed a personal information protection system to the Defendant pursuant to the instant contract, and provided personal information management services from March 2013 to March.

C. Around July 15, 2013, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 380,000,000 for four months from March 2013 to June, 2013. From July 2013 to July 2018, the Defendant not paid KRW 5,795,000 for the aggregate of the consignment management expenses for the period from July 2013 to July 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, with respect to KRW 5,795,00, which is the amount cited in the first instance judgment, and KRW 4,560,000, which is the amount of the unpaid entrusted management expenses and the amount cited in the first instance judgment, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from September 13, 2017, which the Plaintiff sought after the due date for payment, and from August 9, 2018, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the head of the instant incidental appeal, for which the Plaintiff seeks after the due date, as for KRW 1,235,00,00, which is the claim amount expanded in the trial, to the Plaintiff, from August 9, 2018, which is the day when the judgment of the competent court is rendered, to the extent and scope of each Defendant’s obligation to perform.

The Plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay from September 13, 2017 with respect to KRW 4,560,000, but where the Plaintiff declares a judgment ordering the performance of all or part of monetary obligations, damages for delay under the Promotion Act due to the nonperformance of monetary obligations.