Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the business of leasing and managing credit card terminals, and the Defendants jointly operate a restaurant in the name of “D”.

B. On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B on goods support services with the content that the Plaintiff leases PC-1200, terminal, main office, and signature plaque (hereinafter “POS equipment”) to Defendant B for a fixed period of contract (period of compulsory use) of 35 months, management expenses (where the number of card terminations is at least 500 cases, 15,000 won per 100 cases, 60,000 won per 100 cases) and provides related services (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation under the instant contract.

According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff installed the Defendants’ restaurant with a total amount of KRW 2,200,000.

C. The relevant terms and conditions of the instant contract are as follows.

Article 10 (Termination of a Service Contract) When a franchise store intends to terminate a service contract, it shall request the company to terminate the service contract seven days before the date it wishes to terminate the contract, and shall pay in full the service charges and the remaining period of the franchise store incurred by the date of termination.

Article 11 (Indemnification) If one of the parties to a contract violates this contract on purpose or by gross negligence, the party to the contract shall be liable for all the damages incurred thereby.

In the case of violation of Articles 3, 4, and 10, the expenses incurred in twice the supply and support (attached Table 2) of products shall be compensated.

In addition, the same applies when the Defendants terminate the contract without agreement with the Plaintiff or when the purpose of the contract can not be achieved due to other reasons attributable to the Defendants.

From December 2016, the Defendants discontinued the above restaurant on January 24, 2017 and suspended the implementation of the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.