1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 2012, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion ordered the Defendants to manufacture Handbag products for the sale of oil in 2012, and the Defendants agreed to deliver the entire amount of the products until April 30, 2012.

However, the Defendants unilaterally notified that they will be supplied by May 7, 2012 without complying with the above delivery period, and they did not comply with the madodoz, and only supplied some products that must be supplied on May 25, 2012.

Accordingly, on June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff rescinded the supply contract on the grounds of the Defendants’ delay in delivery.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 148,342,978 as follows with restitution or compensation for damages following the cancellation of the contract.

① The Plaintiff paid to the Defendants KRW 119,532,378 in total; ② Marketing costs 17,704,600, including web site production, paid by the Plaintiff; ③ Costs of sampling development, paid by the Plaintiff ( KRW 23,505,00,00 in total, KRW 12,39,00 in value of the products supplied by the Defendants ( KRW 119,532,378, ② KRW 17,704,60 in total, KRW 23,505,00 in total, KRW 12,39,00 in = KRW 148,342,978 in total, KRW 17,700 in value of the products supplied by the Defendants)

2. As the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendants decided to complete the supply by April 30, 2012.

There is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the supply was delayed due to the reasons attributable to the Defendants.

Rather, according to each description of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the following facts are recognized.

① From November 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed on the manufacture and supply of Handbag products. The product design was completed around April 18, 2012, and some of the leathers and food materials supplied by the Plaintiff were provided to the Defendants around May 3, 2012.

② Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed on the product production schedule, and the Defendants responded to the purport that they will complete the product production by May 20, 2012.

③ Meanwhile, on May 14 to 15, 2012, the Defendants completed most of the product production to the Plaintiff, and some of the products were supplied by the Plaintiff.