1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 19,163,00 and KRW 15,404,776.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a business, such as a book (fixing the fix of printed materials with a sign attached thereto) in the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person who produces a copy of a destroyed crime in the trade name of “D.”

B. The Defendant issued an order for the production of the graduates of each school after printing them after taking the correction work after taking them over the originals from the company that received an order for the production of the graduates of each school. The Defendant subcontracted the production of the original work to a forest processing company, such as the Plaintiff, and engages in the transaction in the way of delivering the original parts and receiving the payment from the ordering company.

C. The Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant for a set of 57 schools from the Defendant in 2015 as well as the 2015 graduates, and supplied the same to the Defendant around February 2015.

The Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant for a set of 137 schools in 2016 as well as a set of documents to be presented to the Defendant around February 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for payment for the crime that destroyed the year of 2015.

A. Determination 1 on the cause of the claim) The fact that the amount of the purchase price in the year 2015 is the amount of KRW 12,865,050 (including value-added tax) for the principal whose graduates was destroyed by the year 2015 is no dispute between the parties (the defendant led to the confession of this fact in the reply dated 8, 2016.

Since then, the defendant asserted that the above payment was calculated excessively in the preparatory document dated June 26, 2017, and even if the confession was asserted as revocation of confession, there is no special evidence to acknowledge that the above confession was against the truth and due to mistake, the revocation of confession is invalid.

In addition, even when examining the defendant's argument that the above amount of the present text is excessive, the defendant calculated and claimed the present value on the premise that the basic unit price for the present text is KRW 2,000 between universities (Section 4), KRW 1,300, KRW 4, KRW 1,200, and KRW 1,200, respectively.