1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to manufacture 10 kinds of cosmetics by OEM (production of an original trademark).

B. In the case of the OEM method, the Defendant indicated the “manufacturer-seller” as the Plaintiff on the container and the manufacturer-seller without the Plaintiff’s consent, but supplied cosmetics by placing the Defendant as the “manufacturer and manufacturer-seller” and the Plaintiff as the “distributor” without obtaining the Plaintiff’s consent.

Accordingly, in violation of the Cosmetics Act, the defendant misleads consumers as if the defendant developed cosmetics, thereby undermining the plaintiff's reputation and value.

(c)an illegal act;

The Defendant manufactured and supplied cosmetics differently from the ingredients requested by the Plaintiff in the written request for product development.

(Non-performance of Obligations)

From December 7, 2015 to March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,59,550, which is necessary for the development of cosmetics, to the Defendant. The Plaintiff spent KRW 65,191,202 as the cost of the manufacture and design of cosmetics and containers, which are mistakenly indicated.

The defendant is obligated to pay as property damage or consolation money the plaintiff has paid as 95,790,752 won (=30,599,550 won) which is not necessary to pay as property damage or consolation money.

2. In full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 16-4, No. 16-5, No. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-25, the following circumstances are revealed.

① Around September 1, 2015, the Defendant agreed to indicate the Defendant as a manufacturer-seller and the Plaintiff as a distribution-seller in consultation with A, who is a person in charge of the Plaintiff’s side.

② Subsequent to that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s employees sent e-mail from time to time, they developed and supplied cosmetics with the indication methods and ingredients of cosmetics.

③ On August 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant as to the method and ingredients of displaying cosmetics, after being supplied with cosmetics, and most of the supplied cosmetics was completed. At the time of January 18, 2016, consumers already filed an objection.