1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2014, the Defendant provided cosmetics from the Plaintiff. Around that time, the Defendant paid KRW 69,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the price for the goods.

(hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”). B.

However, on or before December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff, whose supply of goods is delayed, supplied goods to the Defendant for KRW 69,000,000 for the amount of KRW 69,000 for the goods until December 16, 2014. Where the goods are delivered, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 69,00,000 for the goods.”

(C) The Plaintiff issued a cosmetic to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff did not supply the cosmetic to the Defendant (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff did not supply cosmetics to the Defendant until December 16, 2014. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 69,000,000 for the goods and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 8, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that, since himself/herself only mediated a cosmetics supply contract between the Defendant and C, there is no obligation to return the price of goods of KRW 69,000,000 according to the supply brokerage agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on November 25, 2014.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is a party to the goods supply contract of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that there was an supply brokerage agreement between the original Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the existence of the above obligation

3. Conclusion, the defendant's counterclaim is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed on the grounds of its merit.