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 February 18, 2013, the Plaintiff completed business registration under the trade name of “A” (hereinafter “instant business entity”), which is a credit card server and terminal installation company, and the Defendant is a person who runs food and miscellaneous retail business under the trade name of “D.”

B. On August 26, 2014, the Defendant prepared a contract for the lease, maintenance, and use of the instant device, etc. (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Defendant would install a credit card device and terminal (hereinafter “instant device, etc.”) equivalent to the sum of the prices owned by the instant enterprise in the form of the contract, and would use it for 36 months during the period of compulsory use, by installing the Defendant’s business entity operating the instant device (hereinafter “instant device, etc.”), and then deliver it to the side of the instant business entity.

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s issuance and delivery of the instant contract to the Plaintiff and the representative of the instant enterprise, and the Defendant’s issuance and delivery of the instant contract to the part of the instant enterprise, and the Defendant’s issuance and delivery of the instant contract to the Plaintiff and the representative of the instant enterprise (hereinafter “instant contract”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the representative of the instant company, and is one of the parties to the instant contract.

Since the Defendant failed to achieve the number of monthly agreements stipulated in the instant contract from August 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,464,00 in total (=264,000 per month = 11,00 won x 24 months (from August 2015 to July 2017) x 1,200,00 won (=10 x 50 x 500 x 24 months)) as damages for the period of the compulsory agreement due to the lack of the number of monthly agreements under the instant contract.

In addition, since the Defendant did not return the instant device to the Plaintiff, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 4,748,00 equivalent to twice the price of the instant device, etc. as stipulated in the instant contract as damages.

(b) the defendant.