1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and this court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs an advertising agency business under the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person who runs an advertising agency business under the trade name of “D store.”

B. On May 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to produce advertising places to publicize the above dental specialty store (hereinafter “instant advertising places”).

(hereinafter “instant service contract”). C.

The Plaintiff again requested F who runs the design business under the trade name “E” to produce the instant advertising site.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared the first draft of May 31, 2016 in accordance with the Plaintiff’s request for the production of the instant advertising paper and sent it to the Defendant, and thereafter, sent a revised draft on June 1, 2016 upon the Defendant’s request for correction, but the Defendant reversed the contract due to the cause that the Plaintiff could not obtain, and thus, is liable to compensate for damages for the damages amounting to KRW 50,00 and delay damages.

B. Defendant 1) The Plaintiff prepared a draft different from the Defendant’s request for correction, and did not comply with the Defendant’s request for correction, and the contract was terminated due to the occurrence of dispute with the Defendant’s headquarters specialized in Heinkin store. 2) The Plaintiff did not pay the expenses to the “E” F, who was in charge of the work of the draft of the instant advertising site.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the case of claiming damages on the ground of nonperformance, the obligee is entitled to seek damages that could not have been gained if the obligation had been performed, that is, the benefit that would have been gained by the performance of the contract. However, it is insufficient to find that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone could have obtained the benefit of KRW 50,000 if the instant service contract was performed normally, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.