1. The plaintiff's defendant as to the sales contract of mobile communications devices between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Before 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract on the consignment of mobile communications devices with KSV Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EM”) and entered into a contract on the consignment of mobile communications devices and entered into such contract that “the Defendant is liable for the management and supervision of a third party to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement requested by the KSM if the Defendant re-entrusted the sale to a third party, and if the third party to whom the sale was sub-entrusted violates the terms and conditions, the Defendant is liable.”

In addition, the terms and conditions of the agreement include the agreement that “the defendant shall pay a penalty if he/she violates the Mobile Device Distribution Improvement Act (hereinafter “The Mobile Device Distribution Act”) in selling mobile devices (hereinafter “the penalty agreement”).

B. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to re-sale a mobile communications device, which was sold or entrusted by the Defendant from the KS Telecom, and the said contract includes an agreement with the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff shall compensate the Defendant for the damages suffered by the Defendant due to abnormal business operations, such as exceeding the standard set by the KS Telecom in the recruitment of new customers, or violating the Terminal Distribution Act.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant consignment contract”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, including the said indemnity agreement.

Before October 5, 2015, KSV (hereinafter “instant violation of the Terminal Distribution Act”) discovered the fact that the Plaintiff sold the device (hereinafter “instant violation of the Terminal Distribution Act”) in excess of the subsidy limit set by the Terminal Distribution Act at a sales store operated by the Plaintiff.

On October 2015, the defendant agreed to pay a penalty with the est telecom and set the penalty in accordance with the business inconvenience management policy for the est telecom.