1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 201, the Plaintiff was a company manufacturing the clothing. Around February 201, the Plaintiff entered into a specific purchase transaction agreement with the Defendant, who operates a ice in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to request the Defendant to sell the clothing produced by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The Plaintiff put a test on the Defendant’s Doll, thereby selling the clothing at his own expense. The Defendant sold the clothing manufactured by the Plaintiff upon a request from the Plaintiff, and then paid the remainder after deducting the Defendant’s commission from the sales price as of the end of each month to the Plaintiff.

The sales revenue of 12,246,80 won in August 9, 197 11,35,35,300 won in 2,696,00 won in 2,697,00 won in 32,395,100 won in 2,326,892 won in 2,157,507 won in 1,158,240 won in 512,430 won in 6,15,069,919,908 won in sales revenue of 6,197,793 won in 4,937,760 won in 2,184,570 won in 26,240,031 won in 2,15,000 won in 2,430 won in 6,15,069 won in 6,919,908 won in 9,1933

C. However, the Defendant did not settle the sales proceeds from June 201 to September 16, 2011 as indicated in the following table.

On September 16, 2011, the Plaintiff set aside from the Defendant’s sett and discontinued his business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. According to the above facts finding as to the claim for the payment of unpaid goods, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 26,240,000 and delay damages therefor.

B. Article 7(1) of the instant contract provides that “The Plaintiff may install facilities, such as interior, equipment, fixtures, and office fixtures, at the Plaintiff’s expense with the prior consent of the Defendant for the management, etc. of his brand image,” and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that “only where this contract is terminated due to the Defendant’s fault with respect to the interior installed under the preceding paragraph.”