1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence No. 1-1-3, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 5, and evidence No. 6-1-4.

On November 26, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendants and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendant’s partners”), and the Defendant’s partners agreed to provide the Plaintiff with a consulting service (all kinds of services, equipment, and electrical art) until they open “G” from the 8,9,10th floor of the “F building” on the land outside Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, until they open the business. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 50,00,000 on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 50,00,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder payment of KRW 50,00,000 on December 17, 2007, and the remainder of KRW 50,000,000 after opening the business.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant service contract” and its price are “the instant service price.” (b)

On November 26, 2007, the Plaintiff received total of KRW 113,400,000 from the Defendant’s partners, including KRW 50,000,000 on November 26, 2007, KRW 50,000 on December 26, 2007, and KRW 13,400,00 on January 24, 2008, and completed the work under the instant service contract around January 25, 2008.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was notified by the head of Seongbuk-gu Tax Office and the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to pay the total amount of global income tax and local income tax belonging to 2007 and 2008 until June 1, 2015.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff was obligated to withhold KRW 36,600,000 from the total amount of KRW 150,000 and KRW 36,600,000 from the total amount of KRW 150,000,000 from the service price of this case, and the total of KRW 30,000 from the total of KRW 36,60,000 from the resident tax and the local income tax that the Plaintiff had to pay to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff did not intend to withhold the income of KRW 150,00,00 from the service price of this case. The lower court determined that only KRW 113,40,00 from the total of KRW 150,00 from the service price of this case deducted the remainder of KRW 36,600,