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 for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as stated in the second instance court’s decision, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

(a) delete the phrase “Agreement” of Section 11 of the first instance judgment in the same part;

From 9th to 20th to 9th to 9th to 14th to 20th to 1st to 1st to 1st to 2

Unlike the assessment of the previous assets and the intangible assets for the management and disposal of the corporate tax, the assessment of the previous assets for the report of the corporate tax need not be received from the appraisal corporation of two locations.

Therefore, since the conclusion of the instant contract, it cannot be ruled out that the Defendant could not receive an appraisal of the previous assets for reporting corporate tax only from one of the Plaintiff or the appraisal corporations. Considering that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the knowledge of such circumstances, the Defendant appears to have fully performed the remainder of the instant contract, and that the appraisal commission for the instant business is about KRW 1 billion, it would be harsh to have the Defendant compensate the Plaintiff for 30% of the appraisal commission as a penalty for failing to request the instant business.

B. Additional determination on the assertion by this court

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assertion generally maintain their arguments in the first instance trial and emphasizes or adds them in this court as follows:

Plaintiff

Considering that the instant business is an important task necessary to reduce corporate tax to be imposed on the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff provided “counseling and advisory services following the process of implementing a reconstruction project” with a considerable value on the premise that the instant business was awarded by the Defendant, the Plaintiff should not reduce the amount of damages.