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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) Since the Defendant asserts that it did not conclude a contract with the Plaintiff, it first examines whether to conclude a contract. 2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the Defendant: (a) leased a C gas station operated as a B gas station on April 16, 2014; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the status of the supply contract for the gas station on June 26, 2014; (c) the Plaintiff sent a digital signature to the Defendant on June 30, 2014; and (c) the Defendant sent a digital signature to the Defendant on the B gas product supply contract for the gas station with the Defendant on July 4, 2014.

3) If so, the Defendant’s digital signature on July 4, 2014, thereby entering into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the supply of Category B petroleum products (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

The defendant's assertion against this is not accepted. (2) The defendant's assertion against this is not accepted. (1) The statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim for a penalty, and the fact-finding with the KOR of the first instance court on the south of Korea. According to the result of the fact-finding with the KOR of the first instance court, Article 7 of the supply contract of this case provides that "if a gas station violates Article 29 (1) 1 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, the plaintiff may claim 30 million won as a penalty for penalty," and (2) as a result of collecting samples from a gas station around July 2014, the KPE determines it as a fake petroleum product (a mixture of oil oil from gasoline) and notifies the related agency thereof.

2. Meanwhile, Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act is a fake petroleum product.