A. The Plaintiff operated a new manufacturing business under the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant operated a safety protective outfit wholesale business under the trade name of “D”.

B. The Plaintiff supplied a new contract to the Defendant for several years until December 6, 2019, and the amount of the goods unpaid as of December 6, 2019 is KRW 62,610,750.

C. On December 13, 2019, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000,000 as the price for goods, and KRW 10,000,00 on January 10, 202.

On May 19, 2020, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a Kakao Stockholm message stating that “I will arrange the business as of the end of this month because of a decrease in sales, etc... The outstanding amount will be returned to the present inventory and arranged.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 42,610,750 (=62,610,750-20,000) and the amount calculated by the Defendant from December 7, 2019 to May 29, 2020, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day following the day when the Defendant was supplied with the goods from the Plaintiff, to May 29, 2020, the amount of money calculated by each of 12% per annum from the following day to the day when the copy of the complaint of this case is served.

B. On December 2010, the Defendant’s argument that the Defendant continued to conduct the first transaction with the Plaintiff’s father and returned defective goods from time to time for about 10 years. Since there is a defect in the products equivalent to KRW 10,522,600 among the new shoes supplied by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s payment should be deducted from the price of the goods to be paid, and the Plaintiff’s claim for full payment of the price of the goods without returning defective goods is contrary to the good faith principle.

However, the submitted evidence alone contains defects in the goods supplied by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s claim of this case is based on the good faith principle.