2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the import of automobile parts and wholesale and retail business, and the Defendant is a person who runs the automobile maintenance business in the trade name of “B”.

B. On August 16, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to supply motor vehicle parts (hereinafter “instant goods”) such as the fronter, Raben car (CC), Rabro, parking center, left-hand fence, left-hand fence, the front left-hand part of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant supplied all of them. However, the Defendant did not pay KRW 1,975,600 for the instant goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,975,600 for the instant goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 22, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the instant complaint, to the day of the delivery of the instant complaint.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) The Defendant’s employee’s main point of the Defendant’s assertion misleads the Plaintiff to make a written estimate of the goods of this case, and thereby requested the supply of the goods of this case.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant traded the automobile parts from July 2016 to three times, and ① the Defendant requested for the estimation, ② the Plaintiff’s presentation of the quotation, ③ the Defendant’s confirmation of the purchase, and ④ the Plaintiff’s confirmation of the purchase has been conducted by the means of supplying the parts. As such, the Plaintiff, referring to the existing transaction method, must undergo the procedures such as sending the quotation to the Defendant, confirming the details of the order, and confirming and confirming the details of the order. However, it is unreasonable to unilaterally claim for the payment of the goods without accepting the Defendant’s request for return.

(ii).