1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of dismissal and dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(A) On February 2, 200, the part of the first instance court’s finding of facts and judgment should not be different from the fact-finding of the first instance court, considering all additional arguments and evidence. The part of the second instance court’s finding of facts-finding of the first instance court’s 9 pages 4 of the first instance court’s 9 is as follows: “No. 5 (No. 12-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 12-2)”

The judgment of the court of first instance on the part of the six to seven pages is as follows.

Whether there exists an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay a performance bonus, separate from the service price, at the time of the conclusion of the instant service agreement. In order to establish a contract, the objective agreement between the parties is required to be reached, and there is an objective agreement, all of the matters indicated in the parties’ expression of intent should be the same. On the other hand, even if the parties do not have an objective element of the contract, when the parties have expressed, inter alia, their intent with a significant significance and expressed their intent as a requirement for the formation of the contract, the contract is lawful and effective. The offer, which is a legal requirement for the formation of the contract, must be a specific and conclusive declaration that is the formation of the contract if they consented thereto, so it is necessary to include matters to the extent that the contents of the contract can be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53059, Apr. 11, 2003). In light of the following circumstances, each of the parties’ testimony and payment agreements is insufficient, as alleged in the evidence.