1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. The Gangnam-gu Cultural Foundation ordered CJD’s exercise of “C” to CJ CJ C, and the above CJHD again demanded the Defendant to exercise the above exercise, the fact that CJHD paid KRW 20,007,50 to the Defendant at the above exercise cost around October 2014, the fact that CJHD paid KRW 20,000 to the Defendant at the exercise cost of the above exercise cost is not in dispute between the parties, or that the witness D’s testimony at the trial, part of the witness B at the trial, and that the entire purport of the arguments is recognized in full view of the purport of the arguments.

2. The assertion;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is entitled to exercise the above events from CJHS, because the plaintiff or the plaintiff did not meet the qualification requirements, and the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to enter into a CJHHS agreement with CJHS and the above HJHS agreement with the defendant, and the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff the remaining amount after deducting 3% fees from the service fees received from CJHHS. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 17,207,275 won [20,07,500 won x 97% x 97% - 2,200,000 won paid) and delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion was concluded with B, not the plaintiff, but only paid the service price to the plaintiff and received a tax invoice corresponding thereto. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to seek payment of the service price to the defendant.

3. The testimony of each of the descriptions of Gap's 1 to 4 (including paper numbers) and part of Gap's 1 to 4 witness Eul is insufficient to acknowledge that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded as alleged by the plaintiff. Rather, there is no evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul's 1 to 17 (including paper numbers) and witness Eul's testimony and some of witness Eul's witness Eul and witness Eul's 1 to 17 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the arguments, the defendant and the defendant are the main points of Eul's employee D who had been known to the defendant since he was awarded the above events from CJH car and had been aware of it before it.