1. Of the judgment of the first instance on the principal lawsuit, the part of the judgment ordering payment is against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] Judgment of the first instance court No. 8B

(4) The part of subsection (4) of this section shall be filled by the following:

(4) Therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to refund the fees already paid to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 17 of the sales services contract of this case, and thus cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. Rather, the Plaintiff is entitled to the payment of KRW 16,073,917 corresponding to the first intermediate payment fees not yet paid to the Plaintiff, and KRW 24,110,876 corresponding to the remainder payment fees.

(A) The defendant is entitled to make a claim for a counterclaim in the court of the first instance by expanding the purport of the counterclaim and claiming it as above). The judgment of the court of the first instance is dismissed.

Paragraphs 1 and 5.

(d) the parts of this subsection shall be filled by the following:

The agreement on the penalty for breach of contract under Article 17 of the sale contract of this case is null and void against the public order and good morals, and the agreement on the penalty for breach of contract under Article 17 is null and void if the agreed penalty is excessively excessive compared to the interest of the creditor obtained by the enforcement of the obligation. However, in determining whether the penalty for breach of contract is contrary to the public order and good morals, one of the parties must take into account the status of the party, such as whether the agreement was entered into by taking advantage of his exclusive position or superior position, the details of the agreement, the motive and circumstance leading up to the conclusion of the agreement, the process of the breach of contract, the process of the violation of the contract, etc., and it does not constitute a determination that the penalty for breach of contract is null and void solely on the ground that the amount of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da239324, Jan. 28, 2016). The following circumstances acknowledged in addition to the health care unit and the overall purport of the evidence and arguments mentioned above, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s sales contract of this case.