1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On July 16, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a transportation service contract with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall transport liquefied petroleum gas to the Defendant, and the Defendant shall pay an amount equivalent to 93% (C business operator’s lease charge) and 87% (other business operator’s lease charge charge charge charge charge charge charge charge charge charge charge charge charge charge charge charge charge) of the transportation cost that the Plaintiff pays to the Defendant.” (hereinafter “instant contract”).

On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a transportation service contract (hereinafter “instant modified contract”) by changing the content of the transportation service cost that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff from among the terms of the instant contract to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to 85% of the transportation cost that the Defendant pays to the Defendant.”

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s representative director E, who was the head of the Defendant’s liquefied petroleum gas business headquarters, which is the primary cause of the Plaintiff’s claim as to Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 and the purport of the entire argument, stated that “I would refuse to renew the contract after the expiration of the instant contract unless the transportation cost under the instant contract is reduced, but will renew the contract upon the reduction of the transportation cost, and also enter into a transportation service contract for the F District charging station with the Plaintiff.”

As a result of the Plaintiff’s annual sales revenue equivalent to 80% of the annual sales revenue in the transportation service contract with the Defendant, if the transportation service contract with the Defendant is not renewed, the existence of the company itself may be at risk, and thus, the Plaintiff could not refuse such demand. Ultimately, the Plaintiff entered into the instant modified contract.

Therefore, the Defendant entered into the instant modified contract by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s poor condition, and accordingly, the Plaintiff was unable to receive transportation services costs of KRW 80,355,56 for a year. Therefore, the instant modified contract has lost the fairness due to the party’s old-age.