1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts to be cited or added, and the addition of the plaintiff's argument in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or added parts] Following the "No. 6 Eul" in Part 4, paragraph 2, the "No. 15, 17, 18, 22" shall be added to the "No. 15, 17, 18, 22", and "A testimony by a witness" shall be made "each testimony by a witness A, a witness B of the first instance trial, and a witness C of the trial."

Part 6 and 7 of the 4th page "The entry of No. 10 is difficult to believe," "The entry of No. 10 and some testimonys of witness C at the trial of the party shall be difficult to believe, and the inquiry results of the fact-finding with respect to non-Korean corporation at the trial of the party (the previous trade name before the change: the films of seeing Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as "lore film") shall not interfere with this."

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

A. The summary of the additional assertion made most of the advertising of this case through a film to enjoy it as an outsourcing company. The defendant, even though the cost for outsourcing film 69,250,000 won is 69,250,000 won, deceiving the plaintiff as 125,00,000 won, and the plaintiff agreed on the service cost for the advertising of this case as 175,670,293 won, so the above agreement is revoked on the ground of fraud or mistake.

B. In full view of the results of the fact-finding on Gap evidence Nos. 14, Eul evidence Nos. 14, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 2, 4, and 6, and the fact-finding on films enjoying in the court room, the defendant paid out films that enjoying TV-CM production of the advertisement of this case, the defendant estimated the outer cost of production of TV-CM of the advertisement of this case to the plaintiff as KRW 144,31,40 or KRW 125,00,000, and then agreed on the advertising production cost of this case as KRW 172,120,960.