A. The Plaintiff is the domestic total market of the headquarters C, which is a security equipment company, and the Defendant is a company that engages in retail, lease, and maintenance management business of security equipment C.

B. On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff received an order from the Defendant of Daegu Bank Security Monitoring Equipment (hereinafter “instant Security Monitoring Equipment”) equivalent to KRW 93,121,600 from the Defendant, and supplied the Defendant with the payment by November 26, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 93,121,60 of the cost of the instant security operation equipment, and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 27, 2015 to July 1, 2016, the day following the date of delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, and KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment.

In this regard, the defendant, a Korean corporation of the plaintiff and C head office, agreed on the target quantity of additional sales of the CP equipment to meet the above quantity, and there was a practice of selecting the order first even before the execution of the supply contract with the final consumers. In such a case, since the supply contract was not finally concluded, it was not finally concluded, so that the payment conditions were to be paid to the plaintiff when the retail was paid from the final demand source (the payment after the prime demand). In this case, even if the plaintiff and D agreed on the premise that the supply contract of the CP equipment would be concluded with the Daegu Bank, and thus, the plaintiff would have the retail merchant selected the safety monitoring equipment of this case, and the defendant was finally ordered to select the safety monitoring equipment of this case with the Daegu Bank, and thus, the retail merchant revoked or cancelled the contract by mistake with the declaration of intent made by mistake or change of circumstances.