1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

In this case, where the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance repeats the same assertion as the argument in the court of first instance, this court's reasoning is identical to the statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the entry as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

The phrase "..." portion of the consultation fee shall be as follows, from No. 21 to No. 13 of the decision of the first instance.

C. As to the payment of advisory fees, Article 6 of each of the advisory agreements of this case provides that "the defendant shall pay 0.8% (excluding value-added tax) of the amount raised from the date the defendant first concludes an agreement with a financial institution arranged by the plaintiff for the purpose of raising funds necessary for the project and first withdraws funds, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the advisory fee calculated according to the ratio of advisory services performed by the plaintiff in the event the contract is terminated, terminated, or suspended without any cause attributable to the plaintiff." Since each of the advisory agreements of this case, the defendants unilaterally demanded suspension of performance to the plaintiff to run H and PF loans after the contract of this case, and the fact that the plaintiff performed the advisory services for loan transactions before and after each of the advisory agreements of this case, the defendants are obligated to pay the advisory fee calculated in accordance with the ratio of advisory services

However, considering whether the price for the advisory service performed by the Plaintiff reaches KRW 1.2 billion, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 13 and Gap evidence Nos. 25, is insufficient to recognize it, and considering the above facts and the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, it is difficult to calculate the price according to the rate of advisory service performed by the Plaintiff only with the above evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.