A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) is a company with the exclusive sales authority in the Republic of Korea from C (U.S. corporations) manufacturing and selling DLP projector.

B On August 31, 2011, the contract term of the contract was set as one year from August 25, 2011 to the Defendant, and three products, such as Cpro projector IN146, IN5312, AIN5314, were given domestic monopolys, etc.

B. On December 28, 2011, the Defendant entered into an exclusive sales contract with the Plaintiff on the domestic procurement of projectors (the Government Procurement Service) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The main contents of these shall be as follows:

Article 3 (Purchase of Contract Products and Contract Products) 3-1. Contract products agreed to be supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff are as follows:

[The products specified in the separate quotation from among Cpro projectors and American projectors where the electric lock board function is loaded] (The separate quotation includes six products, such as IN146, AIN5312, AIN5314, as well as AIN14, AIN146i, AIN110, AIN110, and AIN110i) Article 6 (Guarantee of Exclusive Procurement Rights to the Plaintiff) 6-1. The Defendant is entitled to recognize the Plaintiff’s exclusive status in relation to the right to sell domestic products under the contract, and shall not sell and supply them to any person other than the Plaintiff in accordance with this contract in relation to domestic sales.

6-6. A contractor may be replaced by a plaintiff in consultation with the defendant.

6-6-1. Where the plaintiff's request for change of contractor is made, the defendant must actively support the plaintiff's registration of procurement.

(referring to the modification, etc. of the contract document with C). 6-6-4. In order to register a procurement, if it is necessary for C to undertake the exclusive supply undertaking or contract, the Defendant shall provide the necessary contract document, and at this time, the contract shall not have any contractual effect other than the registration of the procurement as a sub-contract under this contract entered into with the Plaintiff.

In addition, if the letter of commitment to supply offered by the defendant is false, five times the transaction amount sold by the defendant.