1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. On September 8, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a liquor supply contract with the Defendant, which operates a restaurant called “Ccafeteria” and agreed to lend 4 million won to the Defendant as interest free of charge. The Plaintiff and the Defendant around that time, “the Plaintiff and the Defendant lend 4 million won to the Defendant at free interest,” but the Defendant shall be provided with the Plaintiff’s goods for three years even if the Defendant repaid the subsidy in lump sum. In the event the Defendant unilaterally destroys this contract, the Defendant shall be liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the breach of the contract, as a penalty, twice the above loan’s penalty for breach of the contract.

Accordingly, the defendant received KRW 4 million from the plaintiff around that time, but around September 21, 2017, expressed that he would not make a transaction with the plaintiff and returned the above KRW 4 million to the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant unilaterally ceased transactions with the plaintiff and reversed the agreement of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to pay only the remaining 40 million won, excluding the penalty of 8 million won, which was already paid, pursuant to the penalty clause of this case.

In regard to this, the Defendant has prepared the instant agreement, but the instant agreement constitutes a standardized contract under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Contract Regulation Act”). The Plaintiff failed to perform its duty to explain the penalty clause of this case, which is an important content of the instant agreement, and did not deliver a copy of the standardized contract to the Defendant. Thus, the penalty provision of this case under Article 3 of the Standardized Contract Regulation Act is not applicable.