1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 13, 2015, the Defendant, who is a personal business entity that conducts business such as software development and web site production, entered into a contract for the development of web-site design and program use (A shopping mall) with the Plaintiff for the purpose of bicycle sale.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”). (b)

On February 16, 2015, the Defendant submitted a proposal for the design of shopping mall to the Plaintiff and obtained approval, and completed the construction of the website that reflects the purport of the Plaintiff upon the instant contract and the Plaintiff’s request for revision, and received confirmation from the Plaintiff on February 25, 2015.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the unpaid service costs of KRW 1,950,00 under the instant contract (=2,750,000 - 800,000) and the web hosting costs of KRW 396,00,00, and domain name costs of KRW 88,000, and damages for delay, etc., with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da5712406, the Defendant received a performance recommendation decision ordering the payment of the unpaid service costs of KRW 2,434,00 on July 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation decision”), and the said decision was finalized on July 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) included the contents of the instant contract in which the Internet settlement system will be operated on the website and the continuous management of the website by the Defendant will be carried out. 2) The Defendant, in violation of the instant contract, performed an incomplete contractual obligation by entering “the Plaintiff’s bank account number and telephone number” in an inaccurate manner on the website, and the Plaintiff rescinded the instant contract, and the Defendant also consented to the cancellation of the contract.

3. Since the contract of this case was rescinded as the defendant's default, the above contract was concluded on the premise that it is valid.