1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a credit card terminal leasing management company in the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person who operates a pharmacy in the trade name of “D pharmacy”.

B. On December 30, 2009, the Plaintiff provided a credit card approval and inquiry to the Defendant exclusively for five years, and the Plaintiff entered into a credit card approval system with a condition that the Defendant observe the agreed number of credit approvals during the contract period 】 the number of credit card approvals 】 30 won monthly payment to the Defendant. The Plaintiff may terminate the contract where the Defendant replaced the Plaintiff to another type of device within the contract period under Article 12(1)(b) and (2)(a) of the above contract. The Defendant agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for the goods price and subsidies received during the contract period.

C. According to the above contract, the Plaintiff set up one unit for each wire card terminal equivalent to KRW 450,000, KRW 150,000, and one unit for each package, KRW 150,000. From January 20, 201 to April 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 875,500 as subsidies.

On May 14, 2014, the defendant concluded a contract with another agency and replaced the card terminal into another company's product.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the defendant unilaterally destroyed the contract with the plaintiff by unilaterally destroying the plaintiff's credit card terminal and concluding the contract with another agency, and the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the total of KRW 1,625,50,00 for the goods price of KRW 750,00 and subsidies of KRW 875,50.

B. According to the above facts of recognition 1, the defendant unilaterally changed the card terminal company and violated the contract of this case. Thus, the defendant violated Article 12 of the contract of this case.