A. From April 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the mother and child to the department store B store; and (b) discontinued the store around August 3, 2014.

From January 2013, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff’s above department stores with services such as promotion of the sales of products, sales, inventory management, etc., and received the sales commission from the Plaintiff.

B. At the time of closure, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the actual inventory quantity exceeds the inventory quantity reported by the Defendant in the process of confirming inventory.

C. Accordingly, on August 13, 2014, the Defendant: (a) drafted and arranged a letter of undertaking to repay to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking to repay”); (b) the purport is as follows.

(1) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,069,450, which is equivalent to 70% of the total amount of KRW 35,813,50,000, the quantity of which differs from the inventory on the account book. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 17,618,215,00, which remains after deducting the total of KRW 5 million and sales commission to be received from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay KRW 10 million on August 31, 2014, KRW 2.5 million on September 30, 2014, KRW 2.5 million on October 31, 2014, and KRW 2.5 million on October 31, 2014, and KRW 2,618,215 on November 30, 2014.

(2) The Defendant shall pay the full amount of KRW 35,813,50 when legal action is taken due to the failure to repay in accordance with the above repayment plan.

On August 14, 2014, the Defendant unilaterally claimed excessive amount to the Plaintiff, and sent content-certified mail to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff unilaterally claims excessive amount; and (b) the Defendant, without distinction from the Defendant’s will, made the Defendant prepare the instant repayment undertaking by intimidation and coercion; and (c) the Defendant paid the deposit amount of KRW 5 million and the sales commission.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant did not pay KRW 17,618,215 according to the repayment plan of the instant letter of undertaking, and in such a case, paid KRW 35,813,50 to the Plaintiff.