A. The Defendant had already been supplied with the EED advertising content (hereinafter “ED advertising content”) that is a part of the FES advertising board attached to B’s cash payment machine, etc. from the previous operator C, and the Plaintiff acquired the production equipment and workers to produce the EPE channel from C in the operational crisis of B.

B. On August 28, 2013, the Defendant received 100 Ebbpop-si channels from the Plaintiff, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 580,000 per unit price of Ebpop-si channel to KRW 63,80,000 (excluding value-added tax). The Defendant’s chiefD, in charge of the ordering of Ebop-si channels, sent to the Plaintiff, on August 29, 2013, a written order ordering that the scheduled date of payment from March 20, 2013 to December 31, 2013; and that 600 Ebop-si channels were set at KRW 580,00 per unit price (hereinafter “instant order”).

C. The Plaintiff produced the U.S. channel in accordance with the content of the order sheet, and as the Defendant refused to receive the U.S. channel, the production of the U.S. channel was suspended. The Defendant refused to accept the U.S. channel while denying the order in the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions or images of Gap evidence 1 through 14, Eul's witness's partial testimony and overall purport of pleading (the testimony of witness D alone is insufficient to reverse the above facts of recognition)

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff produced a sudden channel in accordance with the defendant's order, but the defendant refused to receive it and failed to deliver it. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay as compensation for which the defendant's refusal to receive the purchase price of 480 E.S. 480, 240,000, including the value-added tax, and damages for delay caused by the defendant

B. The Defendant asserted that 600 U.S. channel was not ordered to the Plaintiff. However, the U.S. channel was urgent on August 28, 2013.