1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a liquor supply contract with the Defendant operating a restaurant under the name of “C” and agreed to lend KRW 2 million to the Defendant as interest free of interest. The Plaintiff and the Defendant around that time, “the Plaintiff and the Defendant lend KRW 2 million to the Defendant at interest free of interest,” and the Defendant shall be provided with the Plaintiff’s goods for five years even if the Defendant repaid the subsidy in lump sum, and the Defendant unilaterally compensates the Plaintiff for two times as a penalty for breach of the agreement, as a compensation for damages incurred by the Defendant’s unilaterally destroying this contract, as a penalty for breach of the agreement.

Accordingly, the defendant paid KRW 2 million from the plaintiff on July 1, 2016, but expressed his/her intent not to engage in a transaction with the plaintiff on July 6, 2016, and returned the above KRW 2 million to the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant unilaterally ceased to engage in transactions with the plaintiff and reversed the agreement of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to pay only the remaining 20 million won, excluding the penalty of 4 million won already paid, pursuant to the penalty clause of this case.

As to this, the defendant did not enter into an agreement with the plaintiff to pay a penalty of four million won or prepare the agreement of this case, and the agreement of this case constitutes a standardized contract under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions. The plaintiff did not fulfill his duty to explain the penalty clause, which is an important content of the agreement of this case, even though he did not fulfill his duty to explain it, and did not deliver a copy of the standardized contract to the defendant.