A. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the manufacture of textile textile and the business of the business of the wholesale of textile trade. The Defendant is a person who engages in the business of the manufacturing of clothing and the wholesale business in the trade name of B. 2) On September 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of goods”) with the Defendant on January 16, 2015, upon receiving a request from the Defendant who was introduced by the Defendant, who was placed in a spambling agent C, to make an oral agreement with the Defendant on the supply of goods as security for the payment of goods.

3) In accordance with the Defendant’s order, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the product of 30,00,000 won as the price for the goods, 10,000 won, by remaining 219,251,175 won in the aggregate of the price for the goods manufactured in direct salt from around January 2015 to July 20 of the same year. However, on September 14, 2015, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000 as the price for the goods. [Grounds for recognition] Evidence A and evidence 1 through 4 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

No. 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 209,251,175 the remainder of the price of the goods calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 10,000,000 from the total price of the goods paid by the defendant from the total price of KRW 219,251,175, barring special circumstances.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied personal samples worth KRW 247,676,363 in aggregate of the prices of the goods as seen earlier, which are the aggregate of the prices of the goods recognized earlier, to the Defendant, but the evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied personal samples exceeding the amount recognized earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 10 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is the defendant on February 23, 2015.