2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff is a taxi company that runs a passenger transport business, and the Defendant is a person who is equipped with a call control system and operates a mutual call center and provides call services.

B. On July 31, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a call service consignment agreement (hereinafter “instant call service agreement”) with the Defendant and provided call control services under the call control system using the existing voice (TRS device) of the taxi belonging to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, who was concurrently operating the KTP Telecom Company (hereinafter “KTP Telecom”) at the same time, changed from July 2008 to the KTPS taxi system with satellite with satellite navigation function, thereby making it possible to purchase the said call control system from the Defendant via the Defendant to make it possible for the Plaintiff to purchase it from 300 to 1050,50,500,500,000,000 won and 40,000,000 won and 40,000,000 won and 1).

C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant call service contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a written agreement (No. 1 certificate; hereinafter “instant agreement”) stating that “the call service membership fee shall be set at KRW 50,000 per taxi, and the membership fee, etc. shall be adjusted once a year,” was prepared, and the Plaintiff has continuously paid KRW 25,00 as the membership fee per taxi after the conclusion of the instant call service contract.

D. From the beginning of March 2009, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay 30,000 won per 5,000 won per taxi each month, and the Plaintiff did not comply therewith.

E. From 14:00 on May 14, 2009, the Defendant completely suspended call services for the taxi belonging to the Plaintiff.

F. Meanwhile, on May 15, 2009, the Plaintiff terminated the data service contract through the above MET terminal on the part of the KTPP, and on May 18, 2009, settled data service charges as of May 15, 2009, and paid 23,038,180 won in lump sum for the remaining installments of the above MTPP terminal on May 29, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), witness Non-Party 1 and 2's testimony, and the court's inquiry into the KTphurel corporation, as a result of the court's order to submit financial transaction information to the head of the monthly branch of the non-ASEAN Agricultural Cooperative, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of concluding the call service contract of this case, the membership fee per taxi shall be set at KRW 25,00,00, which is less than half of the total amount per taxi compared to other general taxi or private taxi, taking into account the advancement of the Plaintiff at the time of concluding the call service contract of this case and the credibility and business skills of the public. Considering the relationship with other taxi, the defendant stated the membership fee per taxi in the agreement of this case as KRW 50,000. From March 2009 to May 14, 2009, the defendant demanded the Plaintiff to increase the membership fee of KRW 5,00 per taxi without any special circumstance or reason, and the Plaintiff unilaterally suspended call service from around 14:00, May 14, 2009 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff incurred damages to the above 3-party call service of this case by not only the above 3-party call service provider due to its failure to obtain the call service from other taxi service companies, but also the Plaintiff shall pay damages to the 3-party call service provider for 2080 months.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The plaintiff originally agreed to pay 50,000 won per 50,000 won per taxi at the time of entering into the call service contract of this case, and the defendant demanded the plaintiff to pay 5,000 won per taxi more than 1 taxi. Thus, the defendant's conclusion of the call service contract with Dongbu Es (hereinafter referred to as "MagN Call") operating the Gwangju Metropolitan City brand Center's brand center's brand center's brand service contract may not be paid with subsidies from Gwangju Metropolitan City, without the defendant's refusal of the above request. On May 8, 2009, the plaintiff newly entered into a call service contract with the Gwangju Metropolitan City on or around May 6, 2009, while the new call service contract was made with the KTPel's data service contract and the call service contract of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's request for cancellation and settlement of the data service contract of this case against the plaintiff's entire call service contract of this case was no more than 40,000,000.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

First, according to the above basic facts and the allegations by the parties, the call service contract of this case concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant was reversed. As such, we examine whether the cancellation of the call service contract of this case was due to the defendant's unilateral demand for membership fee increase and suspension of call service, or whether the plaintiff concluded a new call service contract with another call service company without paying membership fees under the initial agreement and terminated the call service contract of this case.

(1) As seen earlier, the instant agreement, which is a disposal document, states that the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the membership fee per taxi at KRW 50,000 per taxi at the time of entering into the instant call service contract.

(2) However, as long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence and content of the expression of intent according to the content of the document should be recognized. However, in cases where there is clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the disposal document can be denied, facts different from the content of the statement can be acknowledged, and in interpreting a legal act of the originator, it can be determined with free evaluation within the extent not contrary to the empirical rules and logical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da34643, Apr. 13, 2006, etc.).

(3) 이 사건을 보건대, 갑 제7, 8, 9호증, 을 제2호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 증인 소외 1, 2의 각 증언, 변론 전체의 취지에 나타난 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 광주 지역에서는 최초로 원고가 1995년경부터 자체 무선호출시스템을 도입하여 획기적으로 콜택시 영업을 시작하였고, 이로 인해 원고는 다른 택시회사 또는 개인택시들에 비해 많은 단골고객들을 확보하고 높은 지명도를 얻게 되었던 점, ② 그 후 콜택시 회사들이 점점 증가하고 콜서비스도 다양화, 보편화되자 원고는 경쟁력 강화 및 비용 절감을 위해 원고의 콜센터를 피고의 콜센터에 통합시키기로 결정하고 2007. 7. 31. 피고와 사이에 이 사건 콜서비스계약을 체결한 점, ③ 이 사건 콜서비스계약은 법인인 원고가 소속 택시 전체에 관하여 체결한 것이라는 점과 위와 같이 원고가 높은 지명도와 많은 단골고객들을 확보하고 있었기에 피고의 콜센터 콜전화번호가 아닌 당초 원고가 사용하던 콜전화번호를 그대로 사용하기로 하였다는 점 등에서 통상의 다른 콜서비스계약과는 달랐던 점, ④ 이 사건 콜서비스계약이 체결된 이후부터 피고가 회비 인상을 요구한 2009. 3. 초경까지 원고가 피고에게 택시 1대당 월 25,000원의 회비를 지급하여 왔지만 이에 대해 피고가 어떠한 이의제기나 금액조정을 요구한 적이 없었던 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 그러던 중 택시기사들 사이에 원고가 택시 1대당 회비로 25,000원만을 지급하고 있다는 사실이 알려지면서 택시기사들의 불만이 터졌고, 이에 원고 소속 택시들이 1대당 콜서비스 사용료 명목으로 월 70,000원 상당(= 2교대 × 1인 1일 1,500원 × 27일)을 부담하는 데 반해 원고는 소속 택시 1대당 피고에 대한 회비 25,000원, KT파워텔에 대한 전파사용료 15,000원, MDT단말기 할부금 14,000원, 지상파사용료 11,000원, 음성단말기사용료 15,000원 등 합계 월 65,000원 내지 67,000원만을 부담함으로써 원고가 부당하게 이득을 취하고 있다고 판단한 피고가 2009. 3.경 원고에게 계약을 체결한 때로부터 1년이 지났으니 회비를 조정하여 줄 것을 요구하면서 우선 월 5,000원씩을 인상한 월 30,000원씩을 지급해 달라고 요구하였으나 원고가 피고의 위 요구에 응하지 아니한 점, ⑥ 2009. 11. 16. 피고 운영의 콜센터에서 상무로 근무중인 소외 3이 원고의 주장이 부당하다면서 당심에 제출한 진정서(피고의 사업자등록증까지 첨부되어 있음)에도 ‘이 사건 약정서에 기재된 회비 전액을 수령하지 않은 것도 나름대로 단체계약으로서 한 것이고 원고 측의 운영난 등을 감안하여 그렇게 한 것이 사실이나, 나중에 알고 보니 원고가 택시기사와 피고 등 사이에서 부당하게 이익을 취하고 있어 원고에 대하여 재계약을 요구하면서 우선 월 5,000원씩을 인상하여 줄 것을 요구하였는데, 이에 원고가 계속 응하지 않자 최종적으로 원고 측에 대해 회비인상협상에 응하지 않을 경우 재계약의사가 없는 것으로 간주하고 2009. 5. 30.자로 콜서비스를 중단하겠다고 통보하였고, 그래도 원고에게서 아무런 연락이 없자 2009. 5. 14. 14:00경 원고 소속 전 택시기사들에게 콜서비스의 중단을 공지하면서 콜서비스를 중단하였다’고 기재되어 있는 점, ⑦ 이처럼 원고와 피고 사이에 회비 인상 문제로 다툼이 생기자 양자를 중재하려 했던 KT파워텔의 영업팀장인 소외 2도 피고 측에 대하여 ‘회비를 25,000원으로 할 것 같으면 1~2년 후에는 얼마를 인상하기로 한다는 등 내용을 계약서에 써 놓지 왜 써 놓지 않았느냐’며 채근하였는데 이에 대해 피고 측은 아무런 말도 하지 못하였던 점 등에다가, 피고는 당초 약정에 위반하여 25,000원만을 지급하여 온 원고에게 미지급금 중 택시 1대당 월 5,000원씩을 더 지급하여 달라고 요구하였다고 주장하다가(2009. 9. 16.자 준비서면), 미지급금 중 우선 월 30,000원씩을 지급하여 달라고 요구하였다고 주장하기도 하고(2009. 10. 12.자 준비서면), 원고의 요구에 의해 피고가 은혜적으로 우선 택시 1대당 월 25,000원만을 받고 나머지는 나중에 정산하기로 하고 유보해 주었다가 미지급금 중 우선 월 5,000원씩이라도 더 지급하여 달라고 요구하였다고 주장하는(2010. 2. 19.자 준비서면 등) 등 그 주장이 일관되지 아니할 뿐만 아니라, 미지급금 전액을 구하지 아니하고 향후 월 5,000원씩을 더 지급하여 달라고 요구하였다는 것도 선뜻 납득하기 어려운 사정들까지 종합하여 보면, 원·피고 사이에 이 사건 콜서비스계약 체결 당시, 이 사건 약정서에 기재된 바와 같이 택시 1대당 월 50,000원의 회비를 지급하기로 약정하였다기보다는, 원고 소속 택시 전체가 통째로 피고로부터 콜서비스를 받기로 한 데다가 원고의 대외적 신뢰도 및 영업력 등을 고려하여 25,000원으로 정하되 피고로부터 콜서비스를 받는 다른 택시회사 및 개인택시들과의 관계를 고려하여 형식상 이 사건 약정서에는 회비를 50,000원으로 기재하기로 하였던 것인데, 피고가 원고에게 회비를 5,000원씩 인상하여 줄 것을 요구하였다가 거절당하자 콜서비스를 중단하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

(4) On the other hand, according to the defendant's 209. 8, the defendant's new call service contract with Gwangju Metropolitan City 2, which is more favorable to the defendant's 0-K call service contract, and the defendant's new call service contract with the defendant's 0-K call service contract with the defendant's 2-K call service contract with the defendant's new call service contract with the defendant's 0-K call service contract with the defendant's 9-K call service contract with the defendant's new call service contract with the defendant's 0-K call service contract with the defendant's 9-K call service contract with the defendant's new call service contract with the defendant's 9-K call service contract with the defendant's new call service contract with the defendant's 9-K call service contract with the defendant's new call service contract with the defendant's 2-K call service contract with the defendant's 9-K call service contract with the defendant's new call service contract with the defendant's 9-K call service contract with the defendant's 2.

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the call service contract of this case to obtain call service from a brand call service provider that is more favorable to the terms and conditions before the suspension of the Defendant’s call service.

(5) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the defendant demanded an increase of KRW 5,000 from the originally agreed membership fee of KRW 25,00, and the plaintiff unilaterally suspended call service as the plaintiff refused it, and thereby the call service contract of this case was reversed. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Scope of damages

Next, we examine the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the suspension of the defendant's call service.

(1) The cost of installment of the MDT Terminal

According to the testimony and the purport of the whole arguments of the witness non-party 1 and 2, since the defendant's call service company among the call service companies in Gwangju Metropolitan City as the company using the above "DT Terminal" among the above "KT Terminal, the defendant's cancellation of the call service contract in this case was inevitable for the plaintiff to enter into a new call service contract with other call service companies. In this process, the above 58 call service companies already installed in the process should be replaced with the system operated by other call service companies. After the suspension of the defendant's call service, the plaintiff received the demonstration service from Gwangju Metropolitan City, while the plaintiff received the demonstration service from Gwangju Metropolitan City, the remaining installments payment 23,038,180 won for the above MT Terminal, which was no longer necessary for the plaintiff to enter into the call service contract in this case. According to the above facts, according to the above recognition facts, the plaintiff did not have any need for the plaintiff to complete the call service contract in this case to receive the above payment of the whole amount of the subsidies from Gwangju Metropolitan City, which was no longer necessary for the plaintiff to receive the above call service.

However, if the non-performance of obligation or tort causes damages to creditors or victims at the same time, such profits should be deducted in calculating damages without waiting for the allegations of the parties. The amount equivalent to the price that can be obtained by using or disposing of materials or articles prepared for the contract due to the cancellation of the contract should be deducted in calculating damages as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37296, 37302, May 10, 200). According to the witness testimony of the non-party 2 and the fact finding about the KTP Hostel Co., Ltd., the plaintiff could not recover the above MT 80,000 won of the above 80,00 won of the above 80,000 won of the above 80,000 won of the above 80,000 won of the above 30,000 won of the above 80,000 won of the above 30,000 won of the above 20,000 won of the above 1.

(2) Other business/business losses.

Furthermore, in the process that the Plaintiff, due to the suspension of the Defendant’s call service, concluded a new call service contract with another call service company and replaced the said MDT device with the device of a new call service company, the Plaintiff asserts that there would be business losses equivalent to about 10% of the sales amount for at least three months during which the Plaintiff would be required to restore the status of transfer, such as recruitment of the retired taxi engineer, credit recovery, and adaptation to the new call system, etc., and sought compensation therefor. However, the above facts are as follows: (a) it is difficult to conclude that part of the taxi engineers belonging to the Plaintiff were only in the suspension of the Defendant’s call service; (b) it is difficult to conclude that the causes of the Plaintiff’s withdrawal are only the reasons for the Plaintiff’s withdrawal; (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s loss due to the suspension of the Plaintiff’s call service from May 15, 2009 to the new call service company; and (d) there is no other evidence to acknowledge any change in the sales amount before and after the new call system.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff 14,338,180 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 8, 2009 to December 7, 2010, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff, which is the date of the decision of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Transferred-hee