1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,320,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from December 28, 2014 to June 15, 2017.

1. Determination on the claim for restitution

(a) In full view of the statements in Gap's evidence 1 to 6, Eul's evidence 1 and 4 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleading (including the fact that there is no dispute) with the witness C's testimony, the following facts are recognized:

On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant under which the Plaintiff would be supplied with the Defendant’s cosmetics at the stores to be installed at his own city and sold off the off-line at the selling price designated by the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000 to the purchase price of the first product (hereinafter “instant contract”), and paid KRW 50,000 to the Defendant.

At the time, the defendant was in progress with the import procedure of D Cosmetics, and upon entering into the above contract with the plaintiff on December 2, 2014, the plaintiff supplied D's natives and natural rains to the plaintiff in early 2014, and after completing the import procedure of D Cosmetics, the above cosmetic was also supplied.

On December 2014, the Plaintiff completed the human test work by dividing the Plaintiff’s stores located in the Guang-si into the Corponer of E products and the Corponer of D products, such as the design interior that the Defendant provided.

From December 2, 2014 to January 2016, the Plaintiff supplied KRW 27,679,600 of the E Products from the Defendant, and did not supply D Cosmetics. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to continue to supply D Cosmetics from March 2015 to March 2016, but still did not receive D Cosmetics from the Defendant, and the Defendant responded to the purport that the supply of D Cosmetics was delayed and understood.

On the other hand, in a situation where the supply of D Cosmetics is delayed with the Plaintiff in the middle of 2015, the Defendant agreed to return KRW 25,000,000 to the Plaintiff when it did not supply D Cosmetics.

B. (1) Determination as to the cause of the claim (1) Whether a contract for the supply of D cosmetics was entered into, however, the Plaintiff’s cosmetic from the Defendant under the contract of this case.