1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2...

1. Determination on the claim for refund of training expenses

A. (1) The Plaintiff, who was entrusted by the Sungsung University, received training for flight class practice for 50 hours from one aircraft (hereinafter “one aircraft”), and paid 6,015,000 won for aviation, through the Sungsung University.

(2) On October 8, 2009, one aviation provided five hours’ training to the Plaintiff et al. and transferred the rights and obligations under the above entrustment to B (hereinafter “B”) with the consent of the Sungsung University.

Accordingly, according to the above entrustment, B decided to provide nine students, including the plaintiff, with training for remaining flight species for 45 hours.

(3) B performed only five hours’ education to the Plaintiff. B’s representative director C made an investment of KRW 250,000 between D and D on January 28, 2010, D made an investment of KRW 250,000,00, and B provided business, equipment, technology, etc. to establish a new corporate defendant company. However, the Defendant Company agreed to comprehensively acquire all rights and obligations, such as the duty to perform the remaining part of the training for the Plaintiff, etc.

(4) However, the Defendant Company rejected the Plaintiff’s implementation of the above practical training, and the Plaintiff did not receive the remaining flight instruction for 40 hours, and the Plaintiff rescinded the above training contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 1,

2. The descriptions of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), Eul Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

B. According to the above findings of the determination, the Defendant Company, which received the Plaintiff’s obligation to perform the training course, was obligated to perform the training course for the remaining 40 hours for the Plaintiff, but refused to perform such obligation. As such, the above training contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company was lawfully rescinded on April 10, 2014, when the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant Company.

Accordingly, Defendant.