The judgment below

Of them, KRW 1,100,000 against the Defendant and 5% per annum from May 27, 2016 to November 3, 2016.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The main sentence of Article 415 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The judgment of the first instance may be altered to the extent of its dissatisfaction.”

Whether it constitutes a disadvantageous change against this, it shall be determined separately by comparing each subject matter of a lawsuit separately, and it shall not be determined based on the total sum of separate subject matter of a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da10024, Apr. 30, 2014).

The record reveals the following facts.

1) The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the amount of KRW 2,750,00 equivalent to the service cost under the instant service contract; KRW 1,688,250 in total; KRW 4,438,250 in total; and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment; and KRW 1,100,000 in total; KRW 1,12,950 in total; KRW 2,112,950 in total; and KRW 1,50 in total with the amount of damages equivalent to 40% of the service cost under the instant service contract; and KRW 1,68,250 in total; and KRW 4,438,250 in total; and KRW 1,550 in total from the date following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to May 27, 2016 to the day of full payment; and the Plaintiff’s remaining damages for delay are determined by 5% per annum.

3. The defendant appealed against the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff. The court below is obligated to pay the agreed amount equivalent to the total amount of service charges to the plaintiff. Since there is no obligation to compensate for damages equivalent to the additional charges, the defendant is obligated to pay the agreed amount of KRW 2,750,000 and the delay damages to the plaintiff, but is disadvantageous to the defendant