2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff entered into a wholesale agency contract (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) on May 23, 2012. On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for equipment lease with the Defendant, which leases an amount equivalent to KRW 35,580,00 in total from June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2015, and leases an amount equivalent to KRW 35,580,00 in total at the market price of ice Entertainment equipment and one thrown equipment, during the period from June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2015. If the Defendant fails to meet the sale conditions stipulated in the instant agency contract, or if the agency transaction contract is terminated due to the Defendant’s fault, the Defendant would pay the amount equivalent to the cost of the above equipment to the Plaintiff, and the purchase price of equipment under Article 6(2) is no dispute between the parties to the lease contract and 50% in each phase (hereinafter “the agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) since May 2014, the Defendant unilaterally suspended the transaction with the Plaintiff; or (b) the volume of typists supplied for 25 months was limited to 371.

(B) Since the Plaintiff uses the trade name, a competitor’s name, “B,” the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 35,580,000 to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 5(1) of the instant lease agreement.

C. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that at least 300 sales targets were set per month in the instant agency contract between Won and the defendant. However, it is distinguished from the sales targets and the sales conditions. In light of the fact that Article 6(2) of the instant lease contract provides that equipment shall be sold at 50% of the market price even if the sales targets are below 79% of the sales targets, it cannot be deemed that the sales targets are "sales conditions" under Article 5(1) of the instant lease contract.