1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that owns patent rights and trademark rights related to shampoo and shampoo and shampoo (hereinafter “instant products”) and manufactures the instant products.

B. Around 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the purport that “the Defendant shall invest funds necessary for the production of the instant product, supply the instant product produced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and the Defendant shall exclusively sell the instant product with the total sales right (hereinafter “instant contract”).”

Under the instant contract, the Defendant invested KRW 165,900,000 to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff installed a production facility in the Defendant’s warehouse and produced the instant product accordingly, the Defendant possessed the instant product (shampoo 197 shampoo, 197 stuff, 81 stuff) and the production facility produced by the Plaintiff on January 12, 2016 in the Defendant’s warehouse.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-2, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant demanded the return of investment money without paying the price, and prevented the defendant from refusing to return the product of this case and using the production facilities. Thus, the contract of this case was terminated upon the plaintiff's notice of termination.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages KRW 210,000,000 (the amount obtained by deducting the Defendant’s investment money from the value of the product and manufacturing facilities of this case) and damages for delay due to the termination of the contract of this case.

Judgment

A. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not pay the sales proceeds of the instant product to the Plaintiff, despite the Defendant’s duty to pay them.

there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was prevented from using the production facility.

B. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that there exists a cause for continuous termination of the contract due to the destruction of trust relationship, it may be argued.