The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 7,374,240 won against Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around October 16, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the Defendant with the content that, if the Defendant supplied goods, such as clothes, to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sold them and pays the price to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid 40% of the sales price to the Plaintiff as commission (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On October 2018, according to the instant contract, the Plaintiff established the same coal agent (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) in Mosung City D (hereinafter “instant shopping district”), and the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with a variety of 2,691 punishment until January 2019.

(c)

The sales price of the clothes supplied by the Defendant is KRW 105,60,900, and the clothes returned to the Defendant by the Plaintiff are KRW 2,021, the amount corresponding thereto is KRW 84,553,900, and the sales price deposited by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 5,253,950.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that most of the clothing produced in the year of writing and the year of re-manufacturing rather than a new good, and that of the non-mentioned clothing was most most of the clothing that were not introduced in the guide book for the introduction of the clothing. Accordingly, the Plaintiff had no choice but to close down his/her business on May 2019 because the sales of the clothing was almost rare.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the performance profit of KRW 9,686,470, labor cost of KRW 12,520,00, KRW 2,000, KRW 2,000, and KRW 9,000, KRW 5,000, and KRW 38,206,470, and delayed damages for the Plaintiff’s operation of the store.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the sales proceeds after deducting 40% of the commission should be deposited to the Defendant after selling the clothing supplied by the Defendant, but the Defendant did not deposit it properly, and the Defendant rescinded the instant contract.

Therefore, it is true.