2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is the representative of “C” that manufactures plastic withdrawal, etc., and the Defendant is the representative director of “D” that makes complete production, sells wholesale and retail business, etc. (hereinafter “D”).

B. Around June 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to manufacture parts (hereinafter “instant product name”) of complete-powered cars (product name: E) equivalent to KRW 20,000,000, and accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the manufacturing of the said goods.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”). (c)

The plaintiff requested several times to the defendant to receive the goods of this case, but the defendant refuses to accept such request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion made the instant goods at the Defendant’s request, the Defendant did not receive the said goods, and the Plaintiff did not pay the price for the goods, denying the Plaintiff’s request for manufacturing the goods.

In addition, the Plaintiff has not been compensated for the cost of manufacturing goods, as well as the damages arising from the storage of the manufactured goods are additionally occurring, and there is also an obstacle to other products manufacturing and business activities.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above price of the goods as compensation for the tort as above.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not request the Plaintiff to manufacture the instant goods.

The Plaintiff was supplied to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) by requesting production, and the place where the Plaintiff requested the production of the instant goods is not the Defendant but the F.

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the price of the goods of this case to the plaintiff and is not liable.

Furthermore, there is also a lack of proof of the Plaintiff regarding the price (amount claimed) of the instant goods.

Even if the plaintiff's assertion is accepted, this case.