1. The Defendant’s KRW 135,266,447 as well as 6% per annum from June 21, 2017 to October 26, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

In fact, the plaintiff is a company that manufactures clothes and engages in wholesale and retail business, etc., and the defendant is a personal business operator who operates the clothing manufacturing and wholesale business in the trade name of C.

On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a product supply contract, and D’s pre-quality test Plaintiff entered into a product supply contract with the Defendant that the Defendant would receive the remainder of 50% from the 37,000 won per set of 37,00 won per set of 37,00 won per set of 37,00 won in the goods supply contract with the content that the Defendant would receive the remainder of 50% per annum from the 15,000 won per set of D’s (hereinafter “ home shopping”) through D’s broadcast operated by D (hereinafter “ home shopping”).

(hereinafter “instant supply contract.” The Defendant manufactured and provided the instant clothing products to the Plaintiff prior to running broadcasting, and the Plaintiff and D followed the quality test of the said prototype, and passed the test on the test that the Plaintiff and D had the quality to the extent that they can be sold through home shopping.

On November 2015, the Plaintiff’s revocation or curtailment of the Home Shopping Broadcasting following the delay in the supply of goods was confirmed to proceed with the Home Shopping Name Broadcasting on D and November 14, 2015, but the said Broadcasting was revoked due to the Defendant’s failure to supply 50% of the instant clothing by no later than the aforementioned broadcasting date.

The Plaintiff, in consultation with D on the 19th day of the same month, tried to proceed with the term broadcasting again, but the time of the above term broadcasting was reduced from 1 to 20 minutes due to the Defendant’s failure to deliver the said term broadcasting again, and even after the said broadcasting, D imposes a panel fee on the Plaintiff for delayed delivery due to the delay in delivery of the Defendant’s goods, and D is entitled to deliver the said term broadcasting immediately from the Plaintiff’s warehouse (the Plaintiff’s store is entitled to deliver the said products upon the order of the customer).