The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. "Recurring transaction" under Article 1 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Door-to-Door Sales Act") means a transaction with an agreement on the restriction on the refund of the price or the penalty if the contract for the supply of goods, etc. is terminated in the middle of at least one month continuously or on an irregular basis (Article 2 subparagraph 10), and a consumer who has entered into a contract for recurring transactions, etc. with a continuous transaction business operator, etc. may terminate the contract at any time during the contract period, except as otherwise expressly provided

(1) Article 31 (1) of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales and the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities (hereinafter “Act on Door-to-Door Sales”) provides for the following reasons: (a) In the same purport, the Plaintiff may terminate the contract at any time during the contract period; and (b) the Plaintiff is entitled to terminate the contract at any time during the contract period; (c) it is justifiable to have determined that the contract at issue was lawfully terminated upon arrival of the Defendant; and (d) the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on continuous transaction under the Act on Door-to-Door Sales

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records as to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff’s termination of the instant contract to the extent that it is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on