The plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of manufacturing cosmetics, quasi-drugs, wholesale and retail business, etc., and the defendant is a corporation with the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale in Korea and abroad, brushes, brushes, brushes, carvings, steel products, brushes, small brus, cosmetics and wholesale and retail business

Around December 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a technology transfer agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “this case’s technology transfer agreement”) under which the Plaintiff would transfer the manufacturing technology and know-how related to dental drugs, cosmetics, and beauty art products to the Defendant by setting the contract period of one year and twenty million won.

The main contents of the technology transfer contract of this case are as follows.

Article 1 (Subject Matter and Scope of Technology Transfer) (1) Technology: Manufacturing technology related to dental drugs, cosmetics, and beauty art products; (2) Related KR-How, etc.: (1) The Defendant shall pay daily royalties of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff in cash in accordance with the schedule set forth below.

(including value-added tax). Any party who causes economic and mental harm to the other party, in violation of the obligations under this Agreement, of Article 6 (Compensation for Damages) of the Cash of KRW 10 million after completion of the second technology transfer of KRW 10 million after the date of separate payment (including value-added tax) under the terms of payment (as of the date of the first contract), shall compensate the other party for any economic and physical damage arising therefrom.

The amount of damages shall be double the contract amount.

Article 8 (Matters of Special Agreement) (1) The plaintiff shall provide the defendant with the machinery of 100-liter capacity, which is owned by the plaintiff, without compensation.

② When requesting the Plaintiff to produce OEM products sold by the Defendant, the Plaintiff will enter into and implement the OEM contract for each product irrespective of this contract.

Since then, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 20 million according to the technology transfer contract of this case.

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, Gap's evidence 7, 8, 11, Eul's evidence 1 and 9-1, and Gap's witness A of the first instance court.