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. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2013, the Plaintiff, who runs a wholesale business, entered into an alcoholic beverage trade agreement with the Defendant who operates B on January 17, 2013, stating that the Plaintiff will continue to supply alcoholic beverages during the trading period of three years by providing the Defendant with equipment such as cooling equipment for his/her business, main subsidy of 3.60,00 won, printing cost, and 3.60,000 won. At the time of the above agreement, the said agreement is automatically cancelled when the Defendant purchases alcoholic beverages that the Plaintiff could provide from a third party. However, the Defendant returned the amount equivalent to the equipment, subsidies, etc. provided to the Plaintiff (Article 5), and agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the estimated sales profit (Article 8) for the remaining period as penalty (Article

B. On February 25, 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily terminated transactions with the Plaintiff and purchased alcoholic beverages from another company.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, since the defendant violated the obligation to maintain transaction relations for the three-year period, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 720,000 ( KRW 360,000) and the estimated sales profit for the remaining period pursuant to the above agreement.

B. On this issue, the Defendant asserts that (i) the instant penalty agreement is null and void pursuant to Articles 6(1) and 8 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions as terms and conditions which unfairly lose fairness, and (ii) even if the said agreement is valid for domestic affairs, only the amount equivalent to the equipment and subsidy that the Plaintiff provided to the Defendant, on or around February 25, 2014, would be directly paid by C Company to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant and agreed to settle an alcoholic beverage transaction agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and (iii) the penalty should be reduced because it is unfairly excessive.

(c) Domins, 1 The Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions shall apply.