1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 97,020,00 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from May 5, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff ordered 7,200 maws to the Defendant who runs the cosmetic distribution business, and paid KRW 55,440,000, which is equivalent to 90% of the prepaid payment, around December 19, 2014.

B. In addition, around December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to stay 150 boxes and paid KRW 41,580,000, which is equivalent to 90% of the advance payment.

C. However, even though the period exceeds December 30, 2014, which is the scheduled date of supply of the above cosmetics, the Defendant did not supply cosmetics to the Plaintiff until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, each of the above goods supply contracts, delivered to the Defendant on May 4, 2016, on which the copy of the complaint of this case stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the above goods supply contract due to the failure of the Defendant to perform the obligation to supply the goods under the above goods supply contract.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 97,020,000 won (=55,440,000 won) and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 5, 2016 to the date of full payment, following the day when a copy of the complaint in this case was served on the defendant as a result of the cancellation of the above contract for the supply of goods.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that as C, the actual party to each of the above goods supply contracts, the plaintiff has been directly traded with C prior to the conclusion of the above goods supply contract, and the defendant delivered the price of goods to C upon request from C by the plaintiff to pay the price of goods in lieu of payment. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant's allegation.