1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the argument that the plaintiff is emphasizing and emphasizing the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as the main reason for appeal, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to determining the conjunctive claim added by this court, since it is the same as the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main text

[Attachment] Article 7 of the first instance court's decision " July 32, 2015" shall be construed as " July 23, 2015."

Part 11 of the decision of the first instance court is "(b)" in (c).

2. Determination on additional grounds for the plaintiff's main appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “subscriber management fees” under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Agreement on the Payment of Fees is a certain period of time (the maximum five years) that the Defendant pays to D with respect to the increase of the Defendant’s profits by attracting the Defendant’s customers, and thus, it is not a “maintenance of the consignment agency contract between the Defendant and D,” but rather a “Conclusion and maintenance of goods and service contracts between the Defendant and the subscriber.”

Therefore, regardless of the termination of the contract of this case and whether D is a specific service to the customer on behalf of the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the subscriber management fees incurred for a certain period according to the subscription agreement entered into by the customers already confined in D.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that the instant fee did not exist since July 2015 on the ground that the instant contract was terminated is unlawful.

B. In full view of the facts admitted in the judgment of the court of first instance as seen earlier, the claim of the instant fee, including the subscriber management fee, is premised on the formation of the instant contract and the maintenance existence of the instant contract, and the claim of the instant fee, including the subscriber management fee, can be acknowledged in light of the following facts and circumstances.