1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 12, 2006, the Plaintiff is a person who operates B publishing a monthly publication, a short work, and a reference note for students. Around September 12, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a local sales agency contract with the Defendant for the distribution, sale, management, and collection of the publication published by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sales agency contract”).

B. According to the contract of the sales contract of this case (A evidence 1-1), the Defendant’s sales area is Gangnam-west area (Article 2(3)), and the return of consigned goods is notified by the Plaintiff and the Defendant after consultation with the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff (A) (Article 5(1)), the Plaintiff shall supply the publication to the Defendant at 70% (monthly) and 60-65% (monthly) of the fixed price. The Defendant shall settle the sales price of the reference publication in the publication entrusted by the Party A within the last day of each month, and shall settle the sales price of the reference publication in the publication entrusted by the Party A within the last day of each month (Article 6), and the contract period shall be determined as one year and shall be automatically extended (Article 8).

C. On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written confirmation confirming that the book value on the account books under the instant total sales contract is KRW 7,431,550 as of September 30, 2009.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that (1) the delivery amount of the supplied book is KRW 62,049,50,000, the defendant's payment for that amount is KRW 11,150,000, and the value of the book returned in accordance with the agreement is KRW 24,71,550, and the defendant's remaining price is KRW 26,187,950, and the delay damages are paid to the plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant did not have any provision that limits the quantity of return according to the instant total sales contract, and the Defendant paid or overpaid the amount of return of the books already supplied to the books as well as the return of the books. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s claim is short of three years.