1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3.

The Plaintiff is a business operator (a summary of VN and Valework) who engages in the sale and management of credit card terminals (a credit card store) [a credit card merchant provides a credit card settlement service by installing a card terminal and a signature tag, and a credit card settlement service is provided to the credit card merchant, and a credit card company receives certain fees from the credit card company for the credit card settlement case conducted at the relevant terminal]; and the Defendant is a pharmacist who operates the “C pharmacy” in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On May 8, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract on the use of a credit card device (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff on the part of “C pharmacy operated by the Defendant,” instead of installing the Plaintiff’s card terminal, signature tag, etc. free of charge, and instead of calculating 40 won per credit card approval (consembing) per case, the Defendant would be paid as subsidies (hereinafter “instant contract”).

At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant agreed to maintain the contract by setting the period of compulsory use at the time of the next 36 months, but the Defendant agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of money equivalent to twice the amount of each content provided by the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff did not use the broadband service or observe the obligatory use period of another company

(Article 6, 7). C. of the instant contract

In accordance with the instant contract, the Plaintiff installed a card terminal, etc. on the “C pharmacy” operated by the Defendant, but the Defendant terminated the instant contract on the ground that the Plaintiff’s broadband service was used only for 12 months, and that it was not good for the Plaintiff in the industry around May 2013, and replaced the broadband business entity (VN) to another company.

Meanwhile, the details provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant regarding the instant contract are KRW 530,000,000,000,000,000, in total, including credit card inquiries, signature plaque 70,000,000, and construction cost

2. The Parties.