The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, except for the addition of the defendant's argument added at the court of first instance as to the defendant's argument added at the court of second instance to "the judgment on the defendant's argument added at the court of second instance", and therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument added in the trial of the court

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the contract of this case was concluded by the Plaintiff that, in return for the Defendant to transfer the Plaintiff’s goodwill to D, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant 6% or 4% of the Plaintiff’s sales of D during the contract period.

The Plaintiff is obligated to maintain transaction relations with D until September 30, 2019, which is the expiration date of the contract term of this case under the instant contract.

Nevertheless, the transaction relation between the plaintiff and D was suspended on February 2018 due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant the amount of damages incurred when the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to D normally from February 2018 to September 30, 2019 [Article 52,965,783 won [Article 2,648,289 won (i.e., the average monthly fee for the period of the normal contract period: KRW 63,558,940 from January 1, 2016 to January 2018) x 20 months (from February 2018 to September 2019) during which the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to D normally] x 20 months during which the fees were not paid (from February 2018 to September 2019). Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff as a damage claim against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff shall be offset.

B. The above argument by the defendant is based on the premise that the transaction relationship with the plaintiff was suspended due to the plaintiff's reasons attributable to the plaintiff, and thus, I first examine this.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the transaction relationship with the plaintiff was suspended due to the plaintiff's causes attributable to the plaintiff only by the descriptions (including the number of branch numbers) of Eul Nos. 3 through 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.