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 (abundance of VN and Valework) who engages in the sale and management of credit card terminals (abundance of a credit card network network) [abund and signature tag to provide credit card member stores with credit card settlement services, and a credit card company receives certain fees from the credit card company for credit card settlement cases conducted on the relevant device]. The Defendant is a pharmacist who operates a "C pharmacy" at the time of the Government-si B.

B. On April 9, 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 60 won per credit card approval (consembing) for each case.

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 service only one month, 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) business 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’ assertion.