2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On June 27, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the use of the Internet and TV services (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant on March 22, 201, entered into a re-contract for three years through the conversion of service products on March 22, 201, and continued to use the said service (the expiry date of the instant contract is August 30, 2014; according to the Defendant’s terms and conditions of the use of the service, the contract shall be automatically extended by one year if the Plaintiff subject to the discount rate did not express a separate declaration by the expiration date of the contract period).

On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the termination of the instant contract by communicating with the Defendant’s Customer Center. At the time, the Plaintiff’s counselors affiliated with the Defendant at the time indicated the consultation process as “request for the termination of the instant contract. Guidance on the usage fee.” The fee is paid by the Internet re-agreement. The Plaintiff’s termination prior to the expiration of the contract period, and the phone is cut off by the phone. There is no processing part. There is no part processed by the phone even after the end of the contract period. There is no mobile phone text box. It is written that the request for the termination of the contract ought to be re-requested at 100.”

C. On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff again filed an application for termination of the instant contract with the Defendant’s customer center, stating that “the charges under the instant contract were imposed unfairly on the grounds that the application for termination was omitted,” and that “the charges were imposed unfairly on the content of consultation with the Defendant’s counselor at the time of the submission of the application for termination.” The content of consultation with the Defendant’s counselor at the time of the submission of consultation with the Defendant was omitted. It was understood that the process was informed, but it was consistent with this, and it was sent to the Defendant’s belief and identification card. The Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s customer center on how he/she believed the counselor and sent his/her identification card. However, the termination of the contract would be done by visiting, but the Plaintiff’s request for compensation for the unused amount.”

On December 3, 2015, the Plaintiff directly visited the Defendant Customer Center to prepare an application for termination, and completed the procedure for termination of the instant contract.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff on November 2013.