2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made at the Defendant’s request on February 2014 and supplied the Defendant with a window installed at the housing construction site. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of the goods KRW 21,747,670 and the delay damages therefrom.

B. Although the Defendant’s assertion ordered the construction site to be installed through the Plaintiff’s employees B, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit, since the Plaintiff returned the Plaintiff’s motion to produce and supply the windows in entirely different colors from the color of the window that is entirely different from that of the Defendant’s order.

2. In the judgment, the fact that the plaintiff refused to receive the above heading without having the plaintiff go to the site on the ground of the original order of the defendant's head of the site, which is entirely different from the original order of the defendant's head of the site, although the plaintiff tried to manufacture and supply the heading at the site of the defendant, and the plaintiff's custody of the above heading is not a dispute between the parties, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the heading that the plaintiff intended to produce and supply the heading was the same as the heading ordered by the defendant's head of the site at the beginning, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the Plaintiff produced and supplied 21,747,670 won to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since it cannot be deemed that payment was made in accordance with the substance of the obligation.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.