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. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case which is written by the court of the first instance as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

(1) The Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal, excluding the grounds for appeal as to the following parts, is not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court are justifiable even if comprehensively considering the evidence and materials submitted to this court, which were submitted in addition to the evidence and materials submitted to this court).

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the 13th of the 5th of the judgment "insurance premium, etc." shall be applied to "insurance premium, equipment repair cost, etc.".

From 15th to 16th of the first instance judgment, the following shall be followed:

B. Determination as to the claim for development costs, etc. of transmission and reception machines. 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff disbursed KRW 8,186,144 with the cost of repairing and developing transmission and reception machines and parts of parts. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said money in accordance with the agreement set out in this case. 2) If the obligation to pay the said money is not acknowledged under the agreement, the Defendant is obligated to return it since the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the above cost. 3) The above money constitutes the expenses necessary and profit-making for the Plaintiff to manage and manage repair and development of transmission and reception machines and repair of parts, and the repair work of parts. 2) Determination as to the above amount under Article 739 of the Civil Act. - In full view of the purport of arguments as to each of the above statements in evidence submitted in evidence No. 10,19,20 evidence No. 10, 19, and 20, from September 13, 2011 to March 17, 17, 2015.