1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 3, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an investment contract between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant investment contract”) under which the Defendant invested KRW 60 million in the “St 33” B, a brand operated by the Defendant, and the Defendant shall pay an amount equivalent to 14% of the sales with profits (hereinafter “instant investment contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant.

B. The investment contract (Evidence A) prepared at the time of the instant investment contract is stipulated as follows:

1) If the Defendant fails to pay the proceeds for at least three consecutive months without consultation with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff may terminate the contract immediately and may claim civil and criminal damages.

(Article 6(1)2) If the Plaintiff violated the provisions of this Agreement and thereby causing trouble to the Defendant’s business, the Defendant may terminate the contract without delay without delay, and the Defendant loses the obligation to return the principal invested to the Plaintiff with the concept of the claim for damages (Article 6(2)1).

C. The Defendant did not pay profits for three consecutive months after the Plaintiff invested KRW 60 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since the Defendant terminated the instant investment contract, as the Plaintiff did not pay the Plaintiff profits for at least three consecutive months, the instant investment contract was lawfully terminated in accordance with Article 6(1)2 of the instant payment order, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract on the grounds thereof.

B. Article 6(2)1 of the Investment Contract of this case provides that the Defendant shall be exempted from the obligation of the Defendant to return the “principal” under the pretext of the Defendant’s compensation for damages where the Defendant terminates the contract due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation.