1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which the Defendant would be supplied with the POS terminal from “B” registered as a business entity (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff remitted the total of KRW 14,300,000 to C’s bank account, an employee of “B”, KRW 11,00,000 on December 16, 2015, and KRW 4,00,000 on January 29, 2016, and KRW 48,000 on February 2, 2016, and received return of KRW 1,8,000 on February 18, 2016.

the transfer was made.

C. Details of the instant contract are as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”)

(2) The contract of this case, which is null and void due to the violation, constitutes a standardized contract. The key contents of the contract of this case concerning the conclusion, implementation, cancellation, and compensation for damages of the contract of this case are in violation of the Terms and Conditions Act, and the remaining parts are not enough to achieve the purpose of the contract. Thus, the entire contract of this case is null and void pursuant to the proviso of Article 16 of the Terms and Conditions Act. (2) The defendant, when entering into the contract of this case by mistake, did not explain any description of the ownership, automatic extension, termination, damages, etc. of the POS terminal, which is an essential part of the contract of this case, and the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case by determining that the contract of this case is a normal commodity supply contract. If the plaintiff was aware of the important contents

3 The Defendant rejected the request of the Defendant, although the POS terminal supplied by the Plaintiff due to the nonperformance did not work normally during the business hours.

The defendant is obligated to restore the POS terminal in accordance with the contract of this case.