Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked, and the revocation part shall be revoked.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be a same.

Basic Facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) is a value-added telecommunications business operator, a value-added telecommunications business operator who acts as a broker for approval of the use of cards and purchases of cards cards by establishing networks between credit card companies and chain stores.

B. The Plaintiff is a system that combines the function of the POS (POFO) cash register and the computer terminal with the name of “D” (formerly prior to changes: E), and as a system that collects and processes various information and data necessary for retail management at the same time, the Plaintiff is a management system at the time of sales.

In lieu of leasing, maintaining, and managing equipment, the duties are performed by entering into a POS program use agreement to receive service fees each month from the member stores, and the so-called "bench fee" was paid by the VN business operator according to the credit card settlement number arising from the member stores.

C. In around 201, the Plaintiff concluded an agreement with C to collect and submit 83,00 items on the credit card table to C each month for the promotion of “marketing” and received events accordingly. In addition, the Plaintiff agreed to collect and submit 73,00 items on the credit card table 83,00 items on the premise that the Defendant and the Defendant directly purchased and submitted 73,00 items on the credit card table 83,00 items on the credit card table from the chain store from C and to achieve 73,00 items on the business after receipt of advance payment from C, and if the said goals are not satisfied, the Plaintiff agreed to pay for the shortage 80 won per case to C penalty (hereinafter “instant penalty agreement”).

The Defendant, during the period from June 2012 to May 2013, 2013, imposes penalty on the Plaintiff by failing to perform the above agreed number of occasions, and the Defendant, from May 2013 to January 2014, KRW 3.2 million per month, and KRW 2,912,160 on the Plaintiff.