A. On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff operating a business with the trade name “E” entered into a contract for the supply of goods with the Defendant Company for products, such as natural and forest bathing equipment (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The contract of this case provides that the Plaintiff shall continue to supply products, such as natural forest bath, produced by the Defendant Company, to the Plaintiff during the contract period, and the Plaintiff shall retain the domestic online sales right for the pertinent products and sell them. The Plaintiff’s guarantee amount under the contract of this case is KRW 30 million per month.

B. At the time of entering into the instant contract, Defendant C was the representative director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant D, the husband of the said Defendant, was the inside director of the Defendant Company.

(E) All of them have resigned before entering into the instant contract, but registration has not been completed).

From January 11, 2016 to February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 131,644,752 to the Defendant Company as the price for the goods under the instant contract, but the Defendant Company supplied only products worth KRW 82,475,930.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant Company did not properly supply goods to the Defendant Company regarding the determination of the claim against the Defendant Company is as follows. On that ground, the Plaintiff expressed his intent of rescission of the instant contract in the application form for modification of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim, and the Plaintiff’s delivery of the duplicate of the said application containing such intent to the Defendant Company on April 26, 2018 is apparent in the record. As such, the instant contract was terminated on April 26, 2018.

Therefore, the defendant company obtained unjust enrichment from the plaintiff 49,168,82 won remaining after deducting the total product price of KRW 82,475,930 from the total product price of KRW 131,64,752 from the total product price of KRW 131,64,752, and as the plaintiff seeks, the claim of this case and the grounds for the claim of this case shall be served last.