1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 2,568,200 and also the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. (i) On March 31, 201, the Defendant entered into an agency contract (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) with respect to the sales and management of credit card settlement terminal devices (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) with the following.

In other words, the head office shall pay a bounty to the defendant and lease a credit card device free of charge, but if the credit card payment using the above device is made more than the agreed number of cases during the contract period by installing the above credit card device in the merchant, the defendant acquires the ownership of the above device, and if not, the defendant shall return the subsidy and the amount of the device to the head office to the head office and pay the compensation calculated under the instant agency contract, and if the settlement is completed, he shall acquire the ownership of the device.

Doshe head office paid the Defendant a bounty of KRW 18 million under the instant agency contract, and leased the device amounting to KRW 22.5 million without compensation. The Defendant entered into a performance guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Company for the purpose of guaranteeing the price of the device, the obligation to return the incentive, the obligation to compensate for damages, etc. to the head office.

Article 22(1) of the former Act provides that “The head office of the Republic of Korea and the Defendant shall be the head office of the instant agency and the period of the instant agency agreement shall be changed several times, and on January 6, 2012, the Defendant finally agreed from June 2012 to September 2015 to maintain the monthly 6,659 settlement number.” The Defendant failed to implement the said agreement from May 2013 to September 2015.

Therefore, the head office received insurance money of KRW 20 million based on the above performance guarantee insurance contract, but on July 31, 2014, the head office did not recover KRW 24.6 million against the defendant, such as unrepaid funds, damages, etc. based on the instant agency contract.

B. On February 3, 2011, the Plaintiff operated the instant business under the following contract with the Defendant.