1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for this court’s explanation are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or dismissal under paragraph (2) below. Thus, it shall accept it by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

A. Part 14 and 12 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s liability should be limited in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff failed to educate insurance solicitors of insurance products properly; (b) the Plaintiff easily accepted civil petitions due to the so-called “the so-called ‘the so-called ‘the so-called ‘Mayang Securities incident; (c) the Plaintiff terminated the contract; and (d) the complete sale monitoring pursuant to the “Macck’ operated by the Plaintiff did not confirm the details of the goods notified by the policyholder; and (d) the number of termination by civil petition against the total number of solicitations cannot be known; and (b) the Defendant’s liability should be limited in relation to the tort liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da34143, Mar. 13, 2014). In light of the foregoing, the Defendant’s assertion on the limitation of liability cannot be applied in cases where the Defendant seeks the return of fees already paid to the Defendant under the appointment contract and fee-related provisions of this case, as seen in the instant case. [In addition, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

[.] ".."

B. Part 20 to 21 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

4. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant was 87,174,093 won and the plaintiff.