1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a person who provides card terminal leasing services, etc. in the name of "C", and the defendant was operating the frequency of the trade name "D".

On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for free lease and service (hereinafter “instant contract”) under the condition that the Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s products for a period of 36 months, providing the Defendant with the “equipment of KRW 2:3,600,000 in entirety, KRW 70,000 in TV, KRW 2,00 in POS program, KRW 280,000 in signature cOS program, KRW 660,00 in each card terminal, KRW 660,00 in a card terminal, KRW 1st 30,000 in Greenter, and KRW 30,000 in a cOS market” (hereinafter “instant equipment”).

Since then, the fire occurred in the frequency of the defendant's management, and all of the above devices were destroyed, and the defendant discontinued his business.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the ground of claim as to the entry of Gap's evidence No. 1, and the ground of claim as to the purport of the whole pleadings was not satisfied the contract period under the contract of this case. Thus, pursuant to Article 9 of the contract of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the total value of the product 6,140,000 won and the total value of the POS equipment 15,880,000 won as penalty pursuant to Article 9 of the contract of this case.

Judgment

According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim for penalty for breach of contract of this case and the entire purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and pleading, it is recognized that Article 9 of the contract of this case stipulates that one of the parties shall compensate for damages caused by nonperformance if he/she fails to perform his/her obligation intentionally or negligently

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her obligation was due to an unexpected fire in the business place operated by the Defendant. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her contractual obligation was caused by the Defendant’s intentional or negligent act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her contractual obligation was caused by the Defendant’