1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On November 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to grant the Plaintiff the exclusive right to sell C products (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Defendant unilaterally terminated the instant contract on or around May 2016, and infringed the Plaintiff’s exclusive right to sell the instant products by supplying the instant products to other companies. This constitutes a breach of the contractual obligation or a tort against the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 47,19,834, which is the value of the instant products not sold by the Plaintiff due to the infringement of the exclusive right to sell.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to sell the instant product beyond the existence of the general sales contract on the instant product, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff’s claim based on such premise is without merit.

On April 2015, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages related to defective products or a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment with respect to defective products with the defendant returned 15,880 items of the product of this case to the defendant on the grounds of bad faith, and accordingly, requested the return of the price. However, the defendant did not comply with the claim. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay 47,199,834 won as unjust enrichment equivalent to the compensation for damages

Around April 2015, the Plaintiff returned 15,880 of the instant product to the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant accepted the instant product is not a dispute between the parties. However, according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, and 6, the fact inquiry results and the entire purport of the pleadings with respect to D, it is recognized that the Defendant supplied new products equivalent to the quantity to be returned from April 2015 to June 201, and in light of this, the Plaintiff supplied them.