1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 19,58,800 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from October 26, 2018 to May 31, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an operator of Csan Women’s Board, and the Defendant is a corporation operating software development business, etc., and the Defendant provides a pro-wave video service for a fetus called “D”.

B. On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of an ultra-wave video service (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

Article 2. 1) The Defendant will provide the Plaintiff and D members with stable services during the contract period. 2) The Plaintiff will pay monthly operating expenses of 369,600 won (including six vehicles x 61,600 won, additional taxes) including A/S, network user fee, server user fee, and card (fa code) necessary for the operation of the D system each month.

Article 3 The term of the contract shall be five years from the date of the contract, and shall be automatically extended on an annual basis if the plaintiff and the defendant have no objection after the termination of the contract.

Article 4 (3) If the plaintiff unilaterally terminates the contract for the termination of the contract, the defendant may waive all the rights to the D System and suspend the ultra-wave video service that was provided to the members.

In addition, it is not possible to request the return of the settlement amount, and the monthly operating expenses for the remaining number of months of the contract period shall be paid as penalty.

C. The Defendant’s method of providing the Defendant’s fetus audio-wave services is as follows.

In other words, if the Plaintiff’s portrait image is taken by the Plaintiff’s portrait video recording equipment provided by the Defendant, the video file recorded in the Defendant’s server can be stored in the Defendant’s server, and the mother can see the fetus’s portrait image stored in the Defendant’s server through installing the video application produced by the Defendant on his mobile phone.

From November 28, 2016, the Plaintiff did not use the Defendant’s ultra-wave video recording equipment. Accordingly, the Defendant used the Defendant’s video recording equipment to the Plaintiff around December 30, 2016.