A. According to the facts that there is no dispute over the judgment on the cause of the claim (1) and the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff was found to have supplied lighting fixtures equivalent to KRW 58,850,000 to the defendant on November 25, 2014, and the plaintiff was paid KRW 30,000 out of the price.

(2) According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 28,850,000,000 in the balance of the above lighting fixture and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 21, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case to the Defendant.

B. The defendant's defense has a substantial functional defect in the lighting fixture supplied by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff defense that the payment of the goods can be refused pursuant to the right of defense of apprehension under Article 536 (2) of the Civil Code until the plaintiff completes replacement and repair of the defect. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the existence of a defect as alleged by the defendant in the above lighting fixture Eul alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there exists a defect as alleged by the defendant in the above lighting fixture.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted for reasons.