All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. The court below is obligated to pay USD 2,00,000 to the defendant, regardless of whether the defendant actually made any profit.

(2) The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant was designated as the exclusive agent of G and distributed the profits accrued therefrom, and determined that the defendant is only liable to pay the profits equivalent to US$ 144,104.3.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of intent or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, failing

B. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the amount equivalent to 50% of the penalty of this case, which is a penalty penalty for breach of duty, is invalid against public order and good morals, and reduced 50% of the damages for delay scheduled to pay damages by 50% on the ground that the damages for delay are too excessive.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the liquidated damages or liquidated damages, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

C. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the damages for delay should accrue as of August 12, 201, when one week from August 4, 201, which was the date of preparation of the instant amendment agreement, was the date of preparation of the instant amendment agreement.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on contractual interpretation or by violating the rules of evidence.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2.