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. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3.

The Plaintiff is a business operator (a license of VN and Valework) who engages in the sale and management of credit card terminals (a license for a credit card store) [a license for a credit card merchant to provide credit card settlement service by installing a card terminal and a signature tag, and a credit card settlement service by receiving certain fees from a credit card company for the credit card settlement case in question]. The Defendant is a pharmacist who operates a "C pharmacy" in Sungnam-si B.

B. On May 20, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract on the use of a credit card device (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff on the part of “C pharmacy” operated by the Defendant, instead of installing the Plaintiff’s card terminal, signature tag, etc. free of charge, and instead of calculating 50 won per credit card approval (consembing) per case, the Defendant would be paid as subsidies (hereinafter “instant contract”).

At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant agreed to maintain the contract by setting the period of compulsory use at the time of the next 36 months, but the Defendant agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of money equivalent to twice the amount of each content provided by the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff did not use the broadband service or observe the obligatory use period of another company

(Article 7, 8, C).

In accordance with the instant contract, the Plaintiff installed a card terminal, etc. in the “C pharmacy” operated by the Defendant, but the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s broadband services only through the Plaintiff’s service, and terminated the instant contract on the ground that it was not good for the Plaintiff in the industry around May 2013, and replaced the broadband (VN) to another company.

Meanwhile, the details provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant regarding the instant contract are KRW 530,000,000,000,000,000, in total, including credit card inquiries, signature plaque 70,000,000, and construction cost

2. The Parties.