1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 6,000,000 and its KRW 3,000,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,00,000 from April 8, 2014, and KRW 3,00,000.

A. As to the specific scope, the Plaintiff’s sales of the above quantity of the instant drug to the Jinjin Medicine Co., Ltd. is determined as equivalent to the profits that the Plaintiff could obtain when he ships the above quantity of the instant drug to the Jin Drugs Co., Ltd.

In other words, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 22 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendant have shipped the instant drugs to each of the self-conceptors at the price of 91% of the base price. The defendant shall pay 13,563,348 won, 348 won, which is the sum of the purchase price of the instant drugs, from the 31,788,466 won [Attachment 2] below], which is the sum of the purchase price of the instant drugs to the plaintiff when the plaintiff had shipped the instant drugs to the stock company.

[Attachment 2] Details trading with the Defendant Company * Standard selling Price: Sales volume 】 sales volume 】 sales volume x sales volume x 0.91 sales price * sales cost x sales cost x sales cost x a separate contract unit price based on a separate contract form among the certificates of No. 5 x a separate contract form 42,386,496 won (=28,823,148 won, 563,348 won) and delay damages shall be paid to the Plaintiff.

2) Article 8 of the instant transaction agreement provides that where the Plaintiff and the Defendant sold the product outside the sales area agreed upon without mutual consent, the standard drug shall be compensated for the amount equivalent to 30 times the sales volume compared to that of the other party (hereinafter “the instant penalty provision”).

As such penalty provisions are presumed to be liquidated damages under Article 398(4) of the Civil Act, it is special in order to interpret the penalty as penalty for breach of contract.