1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff, a general restaurant operator, concluded a liquor supply contract with the Defendant and agreed to lend KRW 10 million to the Defendant as interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest. The Defendant shall be provided with the Plaintiff’s goods for three years even if the Plaintiff paid the subsidy in lump sum. In the event of breach of the foregoing condition, the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 20 million as penalty-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free interest-free amounting to the Plaintiff on April 28, 2016 (Evidence A evidence 1; hereinafter the same shall apply).

Accordingly, the defendant received KRW 10 million from the plaintiff, but notified the plaintiff that he would not engage in a transaction with the plaintiff on July 5, 2017 or on the June of the same month on the ground that the plaintiff did not properly perform his duties despite the plaintiff's intention to lend a cooling house for storage of alcoholic beverages to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant unilaterally ceased transactions with the plaintiff, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a sum of KRW 10 million and penalty of KRW 20 million as stipulated in the agreement of this case, since it unilaterally ceased transactions with the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant did not agree with the plaintiff to pay a penalty or prepare the agreement of this case. The agreement of this case constitutes a standardized contract under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions. Since the plaintiff failed to perform his duty to explain the penalty clause, which is an important content of the agreement of this case, and did not deliver a copy of the standardized contract to the defendant, it cannot be asserted as the content of the agreement of this case.