1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court should explain, is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Parts in height:

A. The third 15th 15th 15th 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance asserts that “it is impossible to assert as the content of the instant agreement under Article 3, or even if it is included in the content of the instant agreement, it is null and void in accordance with Article 8 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.”

(b) Parts V through VI of the first instance judgment are as follows.

2) Whether the Plaintiff can assert the content of the instant agreement or not, the instant agreement imposes an obligation on the Defendant to pay penalty equivalent to twice the subsidy, and thus constitutes an important content on the Defendant, the customer, in light of the amount of penalty and the details of the preparation of the instant agreement, etc., and the Plaintiff is obliged to explain the agreement pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff implemented the agreement, and eventually, the plaintiff cannot assert the agreement of this case as the content of the agreement pursuant to paragraph (4) of the same Article.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking penalty payment under the agreement of this case.

Even if the agreement of this case is included in the content of the agreement of this case upon the Plaintiff’s fulfillment of the duty to explain, it would compel the Defendant, who is a conditional customer, to pay the same amount of money as the subsidy in addition to the return of the subsidy, without relation to the circumstance or reason during which the transaction was interrupted between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, transaction duration, and the Plaintiff’s actual amount of damages caused by the discontinuance of transaction, etc.