1. The Defendant’s KRW 132,909,589 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from May 30, 2015 to December 13, 2018.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of selling cosmetics, visiting and selling business, electronic commerce, and the operation and development of Internet shopping mall, and the defendant is a company established for the purpose of selling cosmetics, manufacturing business of functional health foods, wholesale and retail business of functional health foods, etc.

On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff decided to purchase the amount equivalent to KRW 300,000,000 from the Defendant’s products B (hereinafter “instant products”) and transferred the amount of KRW 300,000,000 to the Defendant’s account on the same day.

However, the Defendant only supplied the Plaintiff with the product of this case equivalent to KRW 100,000,000, and did not supply the product of this case in excess of the remaining KRW 200,000.

Accordingly, on January 12, 2015, the Defendant agreed to return KRW 200,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff with respect to the instant product to the Plaintiff by January 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

With respect to the product of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sold the product of this case as indicated in the product packaging paper and product description, which had been followed by the Plaintiff’s employee, D, the Defendant’s employee, and D, who had been dissatisfied with the product packing paper and product description, and which could mislead or confuse the product as a medical product or health functional food, which could promote human growth-oriented expenses or health functional foods. The aforementioned product indicated as “FDA 09151202B U.S. Safety Inspection P.S. Safety Inspection P.C.” and was charged with false labeling and advertising, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 7,00,000 and fine of KRW 20,000 on February 18, 2016 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015Da486), but the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against each other on September 1, 2016, and the judgment of the lower court became final and conclusive around that time (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016No361).

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties concerned as to the facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 2, and Gap’s evidence 4, as a whole, and the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: the Defendant’s assertion by the parties concerned.