1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why this part of the basic facts is stated are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. According to the facts based on the occurrence of the liability for damages, each of the instant contracts was extended by the date indicated in the column of “the expiry date of the contract” in the attached Table in accordance with the extension agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants included in the “written consent to install an integrated digital driving tape and to use the card settlement machine.” Since the Defendants terminated each of the instant contracts on the grounds of the conclusion of the contract with other companies during that period, the Defendants are liable for each of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff in accordance with the compensation agreement included in the aforementioned written consent.

B. The penalty agreement stipulated in each of the contracts of this case within the scope of liability for damages was modified to the damages agreement stated in the “written consent to the installation of an integrated digital driving recording system and the use of the card settlement machine,” and thus, the obligation to pay penalty pursuant to the above penalty agreement is not recognized.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the termination of each contract of this case is the amount calculated by deducting the expenses that the Plaintiff incurred when the contract was maintained from the profits that the Plaintiff could have accrued during the remaining contract period (to apply the standard expense rate of 26.4% publicly notified by the National Tax Service for value-added tax, credit card companies fees, and general expenses). According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments, the Plaintiff’s credit card settlement service amount through the Plaintiff’s credit card settlement service is KRW 19,559,87 per business operator as of 2014, and the fee that the Plaintiff acquired by double, is KRW 1.7% per business operator; the Plaintiff paid value-added tax out of the fee; the Plaintiff pays 0.95% of the settlement amount as a credit card company fee; and the remaining contract period for each Defendant can be acknowledged as identical to the statement in the column of “the remaining contract date.” Thus, the Plaintiff’s termination of each contract of this