A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells communications equipment, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures landscape lighting.

B. On November 16, 2011, the Plaintiff supplied electric wires (the name of the product: 2468 WH/RED; hereinafter “instant electric wires”) to the Defendant.

The Defendant, using the instant electric cable, produced 49,916 LED cap 49,916 (hereinafter referred to as “instant cap”) and supplied it to KON on January 5, 2012.

The Maderns were exported to Germany through an overseas corporation, which is related to the above company.

C. The instant electric wires are in the form of two electric wires clad with clothes (heiring PVC) in the body of the body, and when separation of two electric wires for the purpose of work, the occurrence of a phenomenon where the body of the body of the body of the earth is teared, and the body of the body was revealed (hereinafter “the clothes tearing phenomenon”).

Accordingly, on February 2012, the Defendant agreed to treat the whole quantity of the new European Union and the Mads of this case as return. D.

The transaction of electric wires between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated on May 7, 2013, and the price for goods that the Plaintiff had not received until now is KRW 24,734,06.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, witness C and D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay the said amount of KRW 24,734,06 to the Plaintiff. 2) The instant electric wire does not have any defects asserted by the Defendant.

Even if it exists, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the defect within six months from the receipt of the instant electric wire, and thus cannot be held liable for warranty against the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant suffered damages in total of 69,862,073 won due to defects in the electric wires of this case, and the above damages claim shall be set off against the plaintiff's claims for the payment of goods with automatic bonds.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for principal action is without merit, and the plaintiff set off against the defendant.