1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s provision of bareboat devices, bareboat devices, and peripheral devices can be acknowledged as having concluded an agreement on bareboat use, which only uses bareboat services designated by the Plaintiff.

Even in the case of the “Ban on Use Agreement”, the subsidy was calculated on the basis of 36 months, as in the instant contract, but the said agreement stated that the period of contract is 36 months, unlike the said agreement, the term of contract was reduced to one year, and the automatic extension provision was added thereto.

Even according to F's testimony of the witness F of the trial court, the defendant seems to have tried to enter into a single-year contract to manage the franchise store in a uniform manner.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the contract term of this case to be up to April 30, 2014.

C. As seen earlier, the instant contract provides that “(number of cases below the implementation period* the support unit price* the support unit price* the remaining months)” with respect to penalty for breach of contract.

It is interpreted that the purpose of the Plaintiff’s provision of subsidies to the Defendant’s stores in order to obtain the benefit of fees that may arise during the contract period is to be interpreted as: ① failure to achieve the number of agreements during the contract period (number of cases falling short of the implementation period* the support unit price); ② failure to meet the period due to termination of the contract (i.e., monthly contract number* the support unit price* the remaining month) to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff.

However, there is no assertion on the number of times during which the contract term of the instant contract was less than the number of times for each store between May 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014, which is the contract term of the instant contract.

(The court ordered this part of this case, but the plaintiff's attorney stated that the contract period of this case is three years, so the plaintiff's attorney did not submit any assertion on the premise that the contract period of this case is one year). This part of the claim is justified, regardless of whether the substance of the above penalty provision is settled or not.