1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,215,390 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 1, 2015 to April 13, 2015.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a person who aims to sell beauty products of cosmetics, etc.; the defendant is engaged in communications sales business (fishing, camping, golf, and golf) with the trade name of "B" and sells beauty products through the Internet website of "C"; the defendant, upon receipt of a customer's order through the above Internet website, purchased it from the plaintiff and sold it to the customer; and the defendant, other than the defendant, operated a beauty product sales business in the form of delivering goods to the customer; the defendant, from November 1 to December 6, 2014, operated the 32,735,090 won (=31,210,440 won), and from the plaintiff to December 6, 2014, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant purchased the beauty product of "B" to sell it to the customer; and let the plaintiff rent to the plaintiff, 200,3000 won,4000 won

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 32,735,090 won and 2,480,300 won for selective art products from January 1, 2015 to April 13, 2015, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the assertion of violation of the agreement on prohibition of competitive business or the principle of good faith, the defendant violated this agreement after the plaintiff agreed not to sell the beauty art product to the defendant in the above form and did not sell the beauty art product to the third party.

Even if the Plaintiff sold cosmetic products to the Defendant and sold cosmetic products at a low price to a person other than the Defendant, the Plaintiff violated the good faith principle, and thereby, the Defendant sustained damages.