A. The Plaintiff entered into an electronic component supply contract with the Defendant, and supplied goods to the Defendant from August 2013.

(C) fact that there is no dispute;

On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order seeking the payment of the unpaid amount out of the amount of goods supplied from January 17, 2014 to August 2014, but the Defendant repaid KRW 14,822,603 on November 14, 2014, and KRW 32,560 on January 20, 2015, respectively, reduced the claimed amount to KRW 21,39,048 on February 6, 2015.

C. The Defendant acknowledged that goods equivalent to KRW 12,060,048 were supplied among the Plaintiff’s claims, and asserts that there was no fact that the goods equivalent to KRW 9,339,000 were supplied on July 23, 2014.

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 9,339,00 to the Defendant on July 23, 2014.

2. Judgment on the issue

A. According to the following circumstances, it is recognized that the Plaintiff supplied goods worth KRW 9,339,00,00 from the end of July 2014 to the end of August, 2014, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 6, 7, A17, A17, A23, A24, and A28.

1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant supplied each of the goods equivalent to KRW 14,134,230 on July 14, 2014, and KRW 3,801,60 on August 14, 2014, including the above goods priceing KRW 9,339,00. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Plaintiff on July 14, 2014, KRW 17,935,530 on August 14, 2014 (the sum of KRW 14,130,230 on the goods price claimed by the Plaintiff and KRW 300 on November 20, 2014, and only the sum of KRW 3,801,60 on the goods priceing KRW 14,130,230 on the goods priceing by the Plaintiff) is not inconsistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the said goods were supplied.

3. The defendant's former A Department B accepted the above goods, but it is recognized that the signature was omitted.