1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as a company providing crime prevention services, has concluded a business agreement with the KT and claimed and collected the royalty to be paid by the customers to the Defendant as compensation for the use of the crime prevention services by adding up the telephone fee collected by the KTA.

B. From April 2006 to June 201, the Defendant collected service charges of an amount equivalent to 55,000 won per month (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) under the pretext of the usage charges for the crime prevention service for licensed real estate agents located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which are located in the Plaintiff’s Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and from July 2, 201 to December 2013, the Defendant collected service charges of an amount equivalent to 61,000 won per month under the pretext of the usage charges for the crime prevention service for housing located in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2-3 evidence, Eul 2-2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Judgment on the plaintiff and defendant's assertion

A. On April 2006, the Plaintiff did not conclude a contract for the crime prevention service with the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s operating workplace. However, the Defendant arbitrarily collected KRW 3,811,500 as the fee for the crime prevention service from April 2006 to June 201.

B) B. On October 2005, the case commissioner, a company prior to the division of Defendant, entered into a contract for the use of a crime prevention service that constitutes three years of contract term, 5,000 monthly usage fee, and 5,000, with respect to a licensed real estate agent office located in C and Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and entered into a name change contract with C around April 2006, the Plaintiff acquired the above contract at the time of acquiring an authorized brokerage office from C and entered into a name change contract with the Plaintiff on July 2006. The case commissioner or the Defendant is justifiable to collect service usage fees from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff on the place of business. 2) the judgment of B and the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 7-1, respectively.