1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the following changes. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"I" shall be added to "(the defendant's wife type)" next to "I" of the third 4th sentence of the first instance judgment.

Part 5, "g." in Part 17, "h." in Part 6, "h." in part 1, "h." in part 6, "R" in part 7, "R" in part 18 and 9, "K" in part 8, "as to Article 8", and "(e)" in part 10, 18, shall be respectively "(d)".

From the 6th to the bottom of the 7th shall be as follows:

“2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that: (a) the instant tax service agreement was invalid pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act because it was in violation of social order; (b) was concluded by mistake or deception pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act; or (c) was revoked pursuant to Article 109 or 110 of the Civil Act; and (b) the remaining claim for the payment was made pursuant to the terms and conditions of suspension; (c) the Plaintiff waived it; (d) the conditions of suspension were not fulfilled; or (d) the agreed amount was unfairly excessive, and thus, the Plaintiff’s

The following shall be added to “the contract entered into by the network” in Chapter 8, Chapter 17, and the following shall be determined on the upper part of the 11th page 7 (D).

The part of paragraph (d) is added, the 7th class “D.” is added to “Ma.”, the 12th class 7th class 7th class 7 is added to “Ma.”, the 7th class “Ma.” is changed to “g.”, and the 13th 19th 19th f is changed to “h.”.

Whether the tax service contract of this case was cancelled by mistake, the defendant entered into the tax service contract of this case with the knowledge of the error of whether he is eligible to be a certified tax accountant.