This part of this Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part of this Court's reasoning is cited by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

According to the evidence No. 3 of the governing law agreement Gap, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to apply the law of the Republic of Korea as the governing law of the contract of this case. Thus, the law of the Republic of Korea shall apply to the case of non-performance of obligation, termination or cancellation of the contract

Judgment

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether each of the instant contracts has been terminated is that the Defendant was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract on February 7, 2011 and February 23, 2011, on the grounds that the Defendant clearly expressed that the Plaintiff did not intend to perform the obligation to supply the products as stipulated in each of the instant contracts by notification from January 18, 201.

On the other hand, the Defendant’s priority agreement was terminated or invalidated by agreement between the parties upon the conclusion of the instant distribution right contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s agreement for termination on February 7, 201 and February 22, 2011 was premised on the Plaintiff’s agreement for termination is limited to the distribution right contract of this case. On January 18, 2011, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff cannot supply the present product as a matter of sales right issues and CSSA certification, and the Defendant did not refuse the implementation of each of the instant contracts, and even if the refusal is possible, the Defendant expressed that the obligor would not perform the implementation of each of the instant contracts. That being said, the failure of the Defendant to supply the us was due to the inconsistency between the product’s characteristics and the certification test method in Canada and the United Nations with the sales rights in Canada area, which was caused by the failure of the Defendant to obtain the consent or approval for the grant of sales rights from others, which is not possible for the Defendant to perform due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff.