Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) who exceeds the following amount among the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the termination of the contract by the plaintiff is legitimate (negative)

A. Although the Plaintiff’s claim on the instant sales contract entrusted the Plaintiff with the exclusive sales agency for the instant unsold stores, the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s exclusive sales agency right by excluding the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and entering into an additional sales agency contract between the Plaintiff and another sales agency and another sales agency.

The defendant interfered with the plaintiff's sales agency business by delaying the payment of the agreed sales commission or demanding unilateral reduction.

The Defendant’s act constitutes “where the terms and conditions of the contract are breached or fails to perform,” which is the grounds for termination under Article 10(2)(a) of the sales contract for the instant case.

The Plaintiff terminated the instant sales agency contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint on the grounds of the cancellation of the contract.

B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap's evidence No. 6-1 and No. 6-3, the sales contract of this case cannot be deemed as granting the plaintiff the exclusive right, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① The purpose of the instant sales agency contract is to delegate the Plaintiff with the affairs of concluding the sales contract, and in the case of a contract, multiple contractors are difficult to complete the same work, whereas in the case of delegation, multiple mandatorys are entitled to perform the same work (for example, multiple litigation agents).

② The instant sales agency contract (Evidence A No. 2) was prepared by the Plaintiff, not the Defendant, but the Plaintiff. The sales agency contract of this case was “exclusive sales agency right to the Plaintiff.”