1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim against the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amounts are equivalent to the amount ordering additional payments.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 26, 201, the Plaintiff, a corporation providing shipping agency and multimodal transport services, entered into a contract with the Defendant on October 26, 201 for the Plaintiff’s Internet website as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant service contract”). The title of the contract: The contract price for the Liber service contract from November 15, 201 to March 15, 2012 (for four months): 80,000 won (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply): the retainer payment of KRW 15,00,000 on November 15, 201 (claim within ten days after the conclusion of the contract) and the intermediate payment of KRW 24 million on January 31, 2012 (claim within 15 days after the expiration of the contract period) and the remainder of KRW 6 million on March 15, 201 (claim within 15 days after the expiration of the contract period).

B. On November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a down payment of KRW 10 million, and KRW 24 million on March 16, 2012, respectively.

C. On September 17, 2012, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant, by e-mail, telephone, etc., his/her intent to cancel the contract on the ground that the contract was not completed even after six months from March 15, 2012, which was the expiration date of the service performance period stipulated in the instant service contract. On September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content demanding the return of KRW 34 million for the rescission of the contract and the term payment service cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The scope of the instant service agreement is a new ice work on the Plaintiff’s Internet website’s national language, English, and mobile website’s respective users and managers page. The Defendant merely performed a new ice work to a certain extent from September 17, 2012, which was six months after the expiration date of the instant service performance period until September 17, 2012.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff rescinded the instant service contract, and the instant service contract was lawfully rescinded on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.

(2) Therefore, the Plaintiff is the principal lawsuit.