The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and based on the fact that the sales agency contract of this case is a delegation contract aimed at the plaintiff's interest, as well as the defendant's interest, which is the delegating, but the defendant has justifiable reasons, the contract can be terminated if it is reasonably anticipated by the parties, or if the sales agency contract of this case is not performed during the performance period of the sales agency business determined to be reasonable in terms of the nature of the sales agency business of this case, the defendant can terminate the sales agency contract of this case only if it proves the plaintiff's default, and the defendant is not responsible to assert and prove that there is any intentional negligence in the plaintiff's default, and to this end, the "cases where the plaintiff intentionally neglected to perform the business" of Article 11 (1) 1 of the sales agency contract of this case, which

It is reasonable to view that the contract is not faithfully performed due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff, and as long as the plaintiff did not prove that he was not responsible for the failure of the plaintiff to perform the sale agency, the termination of the contract of this case is justified.

2.(a)

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the sales agency contract of this case is the delegation contract aimed at the plaintiff's interest along with the defendant's interest, but if there are justifiable reasons, the defendant can terminate the contract.

(b) record, however, is shown.