1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,394,00 and annual 6% from March 3, 2016 to May 31, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a credit card service contract with the Defendant, who opened a marina with the trade name “C” in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and entered into a credit card service contract with the following content:

Terms: Terms and conditions: - Terms and conditions of support from October 18, 2014 to October 17, 2017 (Conditional Special Terms and Conditions 36 months): 30,000,000 won: Total number of 600,000 items of contract (27,778 items per case) - Free lease of apparatus, etc.: Agreement for termination of a contract and compensation for damages due to non-performance of contract amounting to KRW 2,343,000 (Article 8) - Where one month is less than 90% even if the number of agreed terms and conditions are terminated - Where the amount of compensation for unilateral termination is paid two times the amount of goods consumed until the termination of personnel expenses (work expenses shall be calculated as KRW 30,00,00 for stuffed goods, as KRW 60,00 per case).

B. After the Mart opening point, on December 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a license agreement for the supply of Pos equipment, including a computer, and supplied the equipment equivalent to KRW 21,054,000.

C. The Defendant failed to collect the agreed number of monthly agreements at one time after the opening point.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the estimated damages amounting to KRW 64,686,00 [2,343,00 for subsidies of KRW 30,000,00 for the equipment amounting to KRW 2,343,00 for the equipment amounting to KRW 2,343,00), 21,054,00 for the equipment amounting to KRW 85,740,00 for the sum of KRW 21,054,00 for the equipment amounting to KRW 85,740,00,00 for the delay payment.

Although the defendant asserts that he is only the nominal lender, it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement No. 1 with the statement No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was aware of it even if it is only a nominal lender.