Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff engaged in contact lenses export business in the name of “C” (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) between E and E, which had been engaged in contact lenses manufacturing business at the Plaintiff’s order, entered into a product supply contract with the content that the term of the contract shall be one year from the date of the contract, and that the term of the contract shall be automatically extended in the absence of additional consultation (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

Since that time, the Plaintiff exported contact lenses supplied from E under the instant supply contract to “F” in Saudi Arabia (hereinafter “F”).

B. On June 27, 2012, upon establishing the Defendant, the Defendant acquired the business body for the manufacture of contact lenses, and accordingly, the Defendant succeeded to the legal relationship under the instant supply contract between the Plaintiff and E.

C. From the end of 2016, the Plaintiff exported contact lenses supplied by E or the Defendant to F, and the Defendant became aware that the Defendant directly exported contact lenses to F around the end of 2016.

As the plaintiff raised an issue to F, F claimed that the damage from the product exported by the plaintiff is US$1,050,393 (hereinafter referred to as "$1,050,393") as shown in the attached Form and demanded the plaintiff to settle the damage.

On February 19, 2017, the Plaintiff and F agreed to settle the amount of 600,000 dollars which the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for to F, and 340,000 USD F is offset by the unpaid amount for the Plaintiff, and the remaining 260,000 dollars were deducted by 10% from the amount to be paid by F for the contact lenses exported by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 20, 21, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.