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 this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized in the trial or added by the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except as otherwise determined in the following (2).

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in providing the Defendant’s video lectures free of charge to the students of the Plaintiff’s educational institute, and thus, failing to distribute the Defendant’s profit from the above video lectures to the Defendant, which is agreed separately with the Plaintiff’s educational institute instructors including the Defendant, even if already agreed with, or not, in the instant lecture contract.

In addition, when the problem pool proceeds from combining the lectures as a whole, if it is opened and operated separately and separately, it may result in the increase in the gross income of the instructors even if the rate of profit sharing is lower than the rate of profit sharing of the previous team, and it is included in the duties of the instructors of the plaintiff's driving school as natural matter.

Therefore, it does not constitute an act that causes damage to the defendant, and even if it is so, it is changed through a separate agreement with the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the plaintiff's private teaching institute instructors including the defendant, to lower the profit sharing rate for the part-time team and change the management proposal to the defendant to conduct an extra-hour learning consultation and an examination of night affairs.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s distribution of the Defendant’s video lectures free of charge, or modification of the Plaintiff’s driving proposal cannot be a ground for termination of the instant contract.

B. The instant lecture contract does not stipulate that the Defendant’s motion picture lectures are provided free of charge to the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute students, and otherwise acknowledges that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on such contents.