1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of automobile black boxes, the manufacture, wholesale and retail, export and import business, etc., and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of semiconductors, electrical and electronic manufacturing, and parts manufacturing and selling business.

B. On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company concluded a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”) as indicated in the attached Table No. 1-2, 2014.

C. On the other hand, on January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff Company entered into an agency contract (Evidence A 2; hereinafter “instant agency contract”) with Sc transport CCTVs, Inc. (hereinafter “Scs”) that is a U.S. company.

[Based on recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. On December 5, 2014, prior to the conclusion of the instant goods supply contract, the Plaintiff Company received from the Defendant Company the 70 cF-100 1,000 cF-1,000 cF-1,00 cF-1,00 cream goods per 70 c. At the time, the Plaintiff Company agreed that the Defendant Company has exclusive sales rights for the Defendant Company’s products, such as CF-100, and thereafter, reflected the contents in the instant goods supply contract as a special agreement.

However, on January 29, 2015, the Defendant Company dumped 450 items of CF-10 products into A, a competitor of the non-party company (hereinafter “A”) who is within five days at the seat of the non-party company, 5 days of dumping 50 items of CF-10 products into 50 items per unit.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendant Company: (a) dumped the CF-100 products into A company for unjust profits; (b) thereby infringing the Plaintiff Company’s exclusive right to sell the products; and (c) by engaging in a aggressive act contrary to social norms and transaction practices; and (d) prevented the Plaintiff Company from achieving the substantial purpose of the instant goods supply contract.