2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant, from June 2003, operates a personal business entity with the trade name of “C” for the purpose of manufacturing machinery, etc. from around August 2003, and the Plaintiff operates a personal business entity with the trade name of “D” for the purpose of precise parts processing, automated machinery manufacturing, etc. from around August 2004.

B. From October 31, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a transaction with the Defendant and the Defendant, “If the Defendant orders the Plaintiff to sell various products, such as a par value, then the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the product and then received the price agreed upon.”

C. On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied products, such as 14,974,00 won, to the Defendant from August 25, 2014 to December 2, 2014.

' by reason, a request for 14,974,00 won was sent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted from the Defendant on August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff made, on September 13, 2014, the 274,000 won of 3,274,00 won of mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing 2,50,00 won of KRW 9,50,00 won of KRW 9,00,00,000 of KRW 1,30,000,000 of KRW 1,30,000,000 of KRW 1,50,000,000 of KRW 2,50,000 of KRW 1,50,000 of KRW 2,00,00 of KRW 20,00 of KRW 20,00 of KRW 1,50,00 of KRW 20,00 of KRW 20.

Therefore, as above, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the price of KRW 14,974,00 for the goods, such as the par value franter, which was ordered to the Plaintiff from August 25, 2014 to December 2, 2014, and the delay damages from March 31, 2016, which was the day following the final claim date.

3. We can see the following facts: Gap's evidence 3, 24, Eul's evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleading.