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. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the wholesale and retail business of card terminals under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who operates the “E discounted horse” in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 101.

B. On May 1, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract to use the POS system 1 sets, etc. free of charge from the Plaintiff and to use at least 9,500 credit card transaction approval services every month using the card terminal provided by the Plaintiff for the period of 36 months agreed upon by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. According to the VN service use contract (hereinafter “instant use contract”), if the Defendant did not use the bareboat service and equipment provided by the Plaintiff during the contract period, the Plaintiff is entitled to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to twice the supply price of the bareboat service.

(Article VII). (d)

From May 1, 2012 pursuant to the instant use contract, the Defendant used the card terminal, etc. received from the Plaintiff at the upper store operated by the Plaintiff from the Defendant from May 1, 2012. On April 2014, the Defendant was supplied with the POS system and the card terminal from another company and suspended the use of the said equipment.

E. The Defendant served the instant complaint on May 28, 2014, and notified the Plaintiff of the intent to terminate the instant use contract on the same day due to the malfunction of the card terminal.

[Reasons for Recognition] A-I-I-I-O (N-I-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

2 Each description of evidence, evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including paper numbers), witness F, G, and H of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Since the instant use contract, which is the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, was terminated by the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Defendant, the Defendant.