2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is the Plaintiff.

A. On February 20, 2014 and May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the use of Internet telecommunications services with the Defendant who operated “BPC bank” as a three-year regular agreement.

B. By September 19, 2014, the Defendant used the above service and asked the Plaintiff for termination even before the end of the contract, and the dispute arose in relation to the penalty to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff upon the termination of the contract, and the Defendant’s demand for compensation on the ground of disability to the Plaintiff, the service was suspended from that time after the Plaintiff’s temporary suspension of the service was demanded, and the contract for the use of the above Internet communications service was terminated by the temporary suspension and the unpaid payment of the fee, etc. on or around April 2015, and the Defendant already discontinued the operation of the said PC and reported the closure of the business.

C. Under the above Internet Communications Service Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the amount that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff due to the termination of the above contract is KRW 1,733,510 as follows.

① The service charges of September 2014 (including value-added tax) ② Additional 7,840 won in arrears equivalent to 2% of the service charges of the above service (including value-added tax) < Amended by Act No. 1,307,490 won in arrears equivalent to 1,307,490 (including value-added tax) for compensating for equipment and return of agreed discount (including value-added tax) (4) 26,140 won in arrears equivalent to 2% of the compensation for equipment, etc. for equipment, 26,140 won in the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 1 through 4, 7, Eul’s evidence No. 1

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, upon receipt of a notice of legitimate date for pleading of the counterclaim, did not appear at all on the date for pleading of the first instance ( August 9, 2016), and on the date for pleading of the second instance ( September 16, 2016). While the Plaintiff’s attorney appeared at the court, as the Defendant did not appear, C divided the pleading into pleading and did not present on the counterclaim. The fact that the date for pleading of the said counterclaim has been postponed is obvious in the record. The Defendant’s counterclaim is the fact that the date for pleading of the said counterclaim has been postponed.