1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 13,602,50 with full payment from May 16, 2014.

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also finite.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in trade business, etc. with the trade name B, and the Defendant runs home shopping sales business, etc.

B. On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) granted the Plaintiff the right to produce and distribute the shoes (hereinafter “instant product”) by attaching a trademark C to the Defendant; (b) in return, the Defendant paid 20,000 US dollars (which offsets the 10th broadcast service commission, and refund the difference to the Defendant at the time of occurrence of the difference) to the Plaintiff; (c) entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to pay brokerage commission (Runring Ryalty and Home shopping sales x 3%); and (d) the contract period was from April 19, 2013 to April 15, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). According to the instant contract, the Defendant paid USD 20,000 to the Plaintiff the prior payment fee.

On the other hand, the above brokerage commission was raised from June 1, 2013 to 3.5%.

C. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,375,000 (hereinafter “instant provisional payment”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 11-16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute over the Plaintiff’s claim for principal lawsuit; (b) comprehensively taking account of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6-10, 17-19 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the Plaintiff’s brokerage commission to be paid from the Defendant with respect to the instant goods from April 30, 2013 to November 12, 2013 (excluding value-added tax); (c) the Defendant paid KRW 189,935,00 in total from May 28, 2013 to January 27, 2014; and (d) the remainder of brokerage commission paid all the brokerage commission to the Plaintiff by offsetting the aforesaid brokerage commission; and (e) the Defendant paid only KRW 21,227,500 in total value-added tax on the said period to the Plaintiff on February 24, 2014.

In light of the above facts of recognition, the above facts are examined.