1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 9, 2011, the Defendant concluded a cosmetic transaction agreement with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant transaction agreement”), and supplied the cosmetic to the Plaintiff from around that time to May 29, 2015.

B. Upon accumulation of the outstanding amount, the Defendant discontinued the supply of cosmetics and applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff to the Seoul Central District Court.

In the ordinary litigation procedure (Seoul Central District Court 2017Gadan5078335), the court rendered a judgment on July 19, 2017 to the Plaintiff on the following day after deducting the outstanding amount of KRW 116,50,154 as of May 29, 2015 from the outstanding amount of KRW 116,50,154 from the sales incentive of KRW 59,040,154 and the amount equivalent to the inventory goods of KRW 16,329,380 from the outstanding amount of KRW 41,130,620 from the outstanding amount of KRW 116,50,50,154 from the original of the payment order.

The above judgment was finalized as it is.

C. On November 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) suspended compulsory execution based on the above judgment until December 31, 2018; (b) paid the Defendant the total sum of KRW 49,012,397 of the principal and interest of the judgment to the Defendant in 12 installments from January 31, 2018 to December 31, 2018; and (c) agreed not to file all civil and criminal claims regarding the claim for the payment of the said goods (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On May 29, 2015, the Defendant asserted that the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim constituted damages to the Plaintiff in violation of the instant transaction agreement by unilaterally suspending transaction without justifiable grounds.

Damage caused by the Defendant’s nonperformance is the amount equivalent to the profit that would have been incurred if the goods were supplied until November 9, 2015, which is the expiration date of the contract.

Since the Plaintiff’s average monthly profit during the period of normal trade with the Defendant is KRW 7,549,800, the Defendant is equivalent to the Plaintiff’s profit for 164 days from May 29, 2015 to November 9, 2015.