1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a liquor supply contract with the Defendant running a restaurant of “C” and agreed to lend KRW 4 million to the Defendant at interest free of charge. The Plaintiff and the Defendant around that time, “the Plaintiff and the Defendant lend KRW 4 million to the Defendant at interest free of charge, and the Defendant shall be provided with the Plaintiff’s goods for three years upon the repayment of the subsidy in lump sum. In the event the Defendant unilaterally destroys this contract, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for two times of the loan as a penalty for breach of the agreement (Evidence A; hereinafter the same shall apply) as compensation for damages incurred by the Defendant’s unilateral destruction of this contract.

Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 4 million from the Plaintiff on April 29, 2016, but expressed the intent not to engage in a transaction with the Plaintiff on May 1, 2016, and returned the Plaintiff the above KRW 4 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant unilaterally ceased transactions with the plaintiff and reversed the agreement of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to pay only the remaining 40 million won, excluding the penalty of 8 million won, which was already paid, pursuant to the penalty clause of this case.

As to this, the Defendant did not enter into an agreement with the Plaintiff to pay 8 million won penalty, or prepared the instant agreement, and the instant agreement constitutes a standardized contract under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Contract Regulation Act”). The Plaintiff did not perform its duty to explain the penalty clause of this case, which is an important content of the instant agreement, even though it did not perform its duty to explain the penalty clause of this case, and copy of the standardized contract to the Defendant.