1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around June 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to supply a non-use visa to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and supplied the Defendant with a total of 165,530km amounting to the Defendant by December 2017.

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 17,695,000 with no payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff was determined to receive KRW 850 per 4km from the Defendant, the Plaintiff was paid a total of KRW 35,175,125 (i.e., KRW 165,530 x 1/4 x 850) from the Defendant. Of them, only KRW 17,695,00 among them was paid.

Therefore, the defendant should receive the remainder of KRW 17,480,125.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant set a brokerage fee of KRW 2,069,125 won (i.e., KRW 165,530 x 1/4 x 50 won) in return for the Defendant’s supply of free to a third party and the Defendant’s supply to the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff should receive KRW 700,000 from the Defendant the ordinary car cost incurred for the transport without charge.

3. Determination

A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant recognized that it was determined to pay KRW 200 per 1 kg of the contract.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 33,106,00 (=165,530 g x 200 won) to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

The plaintiff alleged that he received KRW 850 per 4km from the above amount in excess of the above amount. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 3 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff agreed to pay 120 won per 1 kg to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant received free goods from the Plaintiff and the ice does not have good condition, but the materials submitted by the Defendant alone contain defects in the state of no fault provided by the Plaintiff.

It is not enough to recognize that the above reduction was agreed, and there is a different difference.