A. On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a product development agreement with the Defendant on the content that the Plaintiff shall supply six items and pay KRW 54 million to the Defendant, for 12 months from May 2, 2016 to April 30, 2017 (hereinafter “the first agreement”) regarding the development of coffee design 6 kind of coffee design that the Defendant will produce and sell (hereinafter “the instant first agreement”), as follows:

B. According to the instant first contract, the Plaintiff offered 14 designs for Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 14 to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid a total of KRW 54 million to the Plaintiff.

C. On May 2, 2017, the term of the contract with the Defendant during the period from May 2, 2017 to May 1, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a product development agreement with respect to the category 6 of the coffee with the same content as the instant primary contract (hereinafter “instant secondary contract”), and entered into a contract with the Plaintiff regarding termination of the contract, and delayed compensation as follows.

On June 2017, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the design No. 5-1 and No. 2 under the instant secondary contract, and the Defendant paid KRW 2,50,000,000,000,000,000 as the down payment and the amount until August 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion (1) The plaintiff is obligated to pay 72 million won (eight x nine million won) for the above additional items, since 8 items are additionally provided at the defendant's request, in addition to six items to be supplied in accordance with the first contract of this case.

(2) Although the Defendant paid the service cost of KRW 4.5 million each month according to the instant secondary contract, it did not pay the service cost for at least two months from September 2017, and the Plaintiff notified the termination of the contract on November 27, 2017 on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation. As such, the Defendant is entitled to Article 9(4) of the instant secondary contract.