1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 23, 2011, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion requested the Defendant to express his/her intent to terminate the instant service contract and settle the instant case’s agreement, and the said service contract was concluded with the Defendant’s consent thereto.

Therefore, upon the termination of the above agreement, the Defendant is obligated to liquidate the remainder of KRW 140,00,000,000, other than the amount of KRW 140,000 (excluding value-added tax) that can be assessed as the maximum value of the services performed by the Defendant, among the service costs of KRW 280,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) paid by the Plaintiff in return for the performance of the services performed by the Defendant in relation to the above service contract. Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to seek payment of KRW 140,00,00

B. Determination 1) In light of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 15 and 17, the plaintiff performed the initial service in accordance with the instant service contract on December 23, 201, but the plaintiff terminated the said service contract and notified the defendant by content-certified mail that he/she would wish to reply to the service cost (50% of the total service cost, to request settlement, settlement details, and repayment method, etc.) paid by the plaintiff. The defendant consented to the plaintiff's request for termination of the contract on December 29, 2011, but the service performance records promoted by the defendant pursuant to the instant service contract are more than the price paid by the plaintiff, and therefore, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant notified the plaintiff by content-certified mail that the settlement details and settlement amount would not be possible.

According to the above facts, the service contract of this case is agreed upon by the plaintiff's offer to terminate the contract of this case and the defendant's expression of consent.