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. The Plaintiff is a company running a credit card settlement agency business, etc., and the Defendant is a person operating a retail store with the trade name “B.”

B. On June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) leased one digital signature tag (an amount equivalent to KRW 175,000 at the market price) to the Defendant; (b) instead of paying every month a subsidy of 60 won per case when the number of credit card payments exceeds 900, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a credit card inquiry and license agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the content that the Defendant would use the credit card payment service provided by the Plaintiff for a certain mandatory period.

C. According to the terms and conditions of use of the contract of this case, if the defendant intentionally or by gross negligence failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract of this case (Article 3 subparag. 3), the defendant shall compensate for two times the amount of support, such as the products provided by the plaintiff under the contract of this case, the total amount of the plaintiff's sales during the contract remainder period, and 80 won per case of the head office traded by the plaintiff during the contract remainder period (Article 1 subparag. 1), and the plaintiff or the defendant shall compensate for the whole amount of support, such as the products provided by the plaintiff under the contract of this case (Article 3 subparag. 5).

The contract may be terminated when the content of the contract is not clearly fulfilled.

(No. 3 of Article 10 of the Terms and Conditions of Use (Evidence 2 of A) provides that “When the content of the instant contract is not clearly fulfilled under Table 3” (Article 10 subparag. 3 of the Terms and Conditions of Use (Evidence 2 of A). In this context, “the attached Table 3” appears to mean “the attached Table 2” of the instant contract, which includes the summary of the instant contract in light of the content of the instant contract and the terms and conditions of use.).

The Plaintiff paid only subsidies until March 31, 2016 under the instant contract, and did not thereafter pay subsidies. The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay subsidies on June 14, 2016.