1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,134,360 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 18, 2017 to January 10, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the lease of credit cards, terminals, and other supplementary equipment (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant uses the obligation between 60 months and the Defendant.

A) The Plaintiff entered into a contract, and the Plaintiff installed two card terminal devices and two signature tags to the Defendant. 2) The main contents of the instant contract are as follows:

Article 7 (Loss of Benefit of Time and Compensation for Damages) Where a franchise store (Defendant) has replaced or additionally established a franchise store with other equipment, and where a unilateral notice of termination of contract has been given, etc., the benefit of time shall be lost and the following damages shall be paid to the company (Plaintiff) by lump sum penalty:

(1) During the contract period (period of compulsory use): “The sum of the amount equivalent to the consumer prices such as the leased equipment, slips, and expendable goods, etc.: (3) The amount equivalent to the leased equipment and the total amount of support. (4) (Number of monthly average approval) 】 110 won per unit (special agreement) / the amount of monthly card payment standard: 50 won per unit: The number of monthly card payment standard x the amount of monthly card payment standard x 3) the Defendant unilaterally terminated the instant contract by destroying the Plaintiff’s credit card terminal and concluding a contract with other agencies on October 20, 2016.”

B. According to the above facts, the defendant unilaterally terminated the contract of this case and is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages arising therefrom according to the scheduled amount of damages as stipulated in the contract of this case. 2) The defendant did not have sufficient explanation on the part of the plaintiff. Article 7 of the contract of this case was unfairly excessive to the customer as stipulated in Article 8 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act.