1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 34,056,150 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its amount from June 26, 2018 to June 13, 2019.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 7, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with C and the U.S. “D” for the sale of the sales of the bet lease (hereinafter “instant contract”) and established and operated the F’s store on the E and 5th floor in Bupyeong-si, Incheon (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. On March 1, 2017, the Defendant succeeded to the instant contractual status by taking over the sales business of t lease from C and succeeded to the instant contractual status.

C. Around September 18, 2017, the Defendant discontinued the supply of the instant lease ordered by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion suffered damages from the Plaintiff’s discontinuation of the sales business of the sales business of the sales business of the sales business by unilaterally suspending the supply, in violation of the obligation to supply the sales contract under the instant contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 88,523,600 to the net profit that the Plaintiff had been able to obtain during the remaining lease period (16 months) of the instant store due to damages incurred by nonperformance.

B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged prior to the determination, comprehensively taking account of the evidence, evidence No. 12, evidence No. 12, evidence No. 2, No. 3, and evidence Nos. 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the suspension of the supply of the instant store was caused by the Defendant’s cause attributable to the suspension of the supply of the instant store. Rather, it is recognized that the Defendant suspended the supply of the instant store due to the cause attributable to which the Plaintiff failed to perform its obligations, such as the price for the goods,

The plaintiff's main claim cannot be accepted.

1 The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay the price when the plaintiff awards an order for the leasing through the contract of this case.

However, since June 2017, the Plaintiff's price for goods and the price for goods.