1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 40,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 4, 2016 to April 5, 2017; and (b) April 6, 2017.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a person who operates a value-added network (VN) connecting a credit card company and a chain store (N) (the agent of the above value-added network provider), and the Defendant is a company operating a gas station.

On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the following VN service contract with the purport that the Plaintiff will provide the Defendant with telecommunications services to approve and relay the installation of terminals and the payment of prices:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). The Plaintiff shall support the Defendant with the advance support subsidy of KRW 17,462,00 (POS 36% support, CCTV, and broadcasting equipment) and shall pay KRW 50 per case with the grant.

(Article III(1)(i, b). The Defendant shall be provided with services to gas stations through a credit card inquiryr and list designated by the Plaintiff and shall not be provided with such services by other VN companies.

(A) The term of this contract shall be three years, and the term of this contract shall be automatically extended if no written notice of contract modification or termination is given one month prior to the expiration date of the contract (Article 6). If the defendant fails to comply with Article 6, he/she shall compensate twice the subsidy granted by the plaintiff.

Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff installed in kind an amount equivalent to KRW 17,462,00 for CCTV and broadcasting equipment, etc. to the Defendant, and paid KRW 14,470,469 for each case’s bounty from April 20, 2015 to April 20, 2016.

However, the Defendant entered into a service contract with another value-added network provider from March 18, 2016 during the contract term of the instant case and received the value-added telecommunications service from such provider.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 16, and the facts of the above recognition as to the grounds for the claim, the defendant, for three years from November 1, 2013, provided value-added telecommunications services from the plaintiff during the three-year period, and violated the provision of services from another value-added network provider during the said period, and thus, the defendant agreed to compensate the plaintiff for damages.