1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied the Defendant with a learning site once a week for 24 months; and (b) concluded a learning site supply contract with the content that the Plaintiff pays KRW 130,000,000 from the Defendant’s account by way of cm transfer from the Defendant’s account with the learning site subscription fees on the 25th day of each month.

B. From December 1, 2014 to June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 252,890 in total from the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s subscription fees.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. From November 25, 2014 to May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a 26-year study site, and the Defendant received it normally.

Since the dispatch of the learning paper was suspended upon the Defendant’s request for termination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 965,410,000,00,000,000,000,000,000

B. Although the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of learning materials with the Plaintiff, it is true that the Defendant received a single-minute of learning, and returned immediately after the receipt of the two-minute of learning, and there is no other way to receive the learning materials thereafter.

After three days from the receipt of the one-time learning site, the Defendant released the contract by communicating with the employee in charge of the Plaintiff by telephone, and voluntarily withdraws the subscription within 14 days pursuant to Article 8 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, so there is no obligation to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. The reasoning of each of the evidence Nos. 2 and 6 is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a 26-minute course, and that the Defendant received it, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the testimony of the witness B at the trial court, the Defendant received the learning paper for more than twice and returned it can be recognized.

According to the above facts, the defendant's door-to-door sales, etc. to the plaintiff.