1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,200,070 as well as annual 6% from September 1, 2016 to January 17, 2017, and the next day.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) The following facts may be admitted if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 14 (including each number in case of additional numbers):

(1) The Plaintiff (former Co., Ltd.) is a company with the purpose of manufacturing materials of cosmetics, and the Defendant is a company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling cosmetics.

B. From December 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with cosmetics products and related products in accordance with the order, and the Plaintiff continued to maintain a contract for continuous supply of goods by determining 50% at the time of the order and the remaining 50% at the end of the month following the date of the actual supply of goods.

Article 42,20,070 won in total and related articles supplied to the Defendant from April 7, 2016 to July 15, 2016, but did not receive the payment.

B. According to the above facts of determination, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 42,200,070 for the unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 1, 2016 to January 17, 2017, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's defense of cancellation is that the plaintiff supplied products and components other than products manufactured under an agreement with the defendant, and the defendant does not have an obligation to pay the price to the plaintiff since the contract on the goods supplied cannot be achieved because the purpose of the contract on the supply of goods cannot be achieved.

The defendant used the expression that can be seen as the absence of the transaction itself, which is alleged by the plaintiff in the written reply, but the defendant was the first time.