1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 41,177,205 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from June 18, 2015 to February 23, 2016.

1. In fact, the defendant is a general marketing company that imports bags, bags, clothing, etc. manufactured by the Italian manufacturing chain B ( brand name: C) and supplies them exclusively to the Republic of Korea.

On May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the business of “F” on the first floor of E department stores in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant store”) as follows:

(1) Contract term: (a) the main content of the contract from June 5, 2013 to June 4, 2015; (b) the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the goods bearing the trademark “C”; and (c) the Plaintiff sells only the said goods supplied to the Defendant within the said store.

② The Plaintiff shall bear the expenses of interior necessary for the open opening of the instant store, and where the termination of the contract was made due to the Defendant’s reasons during the contract period, the Defendant shall settle the interior expenses at the rate calculated by the contract period and pay them to the Plaintiff.

③ All expenses, such as wages, retirement allowances, and repair charges, shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

④ The Defendant shall pay 35% (including surtax) of the monthly sales amount of the instant store to the Plaintiff.

After that, the Plaintiff was supplied with the Defendant’s goods at the store of this case, and the sales revenue sold by the Plaintiff was deposited into the first-lane G, and then G deposited the balance after deducting approximately 15% of the rent and all expenses from the Defendant’s account, the Defendant deposited the amount equivalent to the commission to the Plaintiff.

On April 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of the content that “the notification of termination of the contract (re-contract refusal)” was written to inform the Plaintiff that the contract in this case was no longer maintained.

Accordingly, on May 12, 2015, the Plaintiff sent inventory confirmation and receipt certificates to the employees of the Defendant and suspended the business, and left the store of this case.

From that point to that point, the Defendant directly operated the store of this case.

[Ground of recognition] A.