1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,959,301 as well as 5% per annum from March 28, 2015 to July 1, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 1, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied “C” goods from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant goods”) and entered into a business partnership agreement with the Plaintiff to sell the instant goods on a lot store or online shopping mall (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

Article 7 (Business License)

1. The Defendant shall guarantee to the Plaintiff the exclusive status of a lot department store online/iop store.

2. The Plaintiff’s additional securing of online/mard stores shall be determined by written agreement with the Defendant.

Article 8 (Termination of Contract and Compensation for Damages)

2. If one party has violated the provisions of this Agreement, the other party shall set a period of not less than seven days and shall, however, notify immediately the termination of the contract when the correction is not made.

3. A party which has a cause attributable to termination of the contract shall be liable to the other party.

section 9 (Period of Contract) The term of this contract shall be two years from the date of the contract, and shall be automatically extended one year on the same condition unless a written request for cancellation or modification of the contract is not submitted or agreement is not completed from any one month before the contract is terminated.

B. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff sold the instant goods supplied by the Defendant through the instant store in the name department store, the head office of the department store, the building store, the office store, the premium store, the Ansan store, the middle store, the datum, and the online store. Of the sales proceeds, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the remainder after deducting the Plaintiff’s settlement amount from the amount excluding the department store fees.

C. However, around February 11, 2015, the defendant tried to employ the plaintiff as the employee of the plaintiff by visiting the defendant's employees, and selling the defendant's goods in the online shopping mall without consultation with the defendant.