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

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods with 300 p.o.s. 300 p. c. c. 300 c. c. c. c. 300 c. c. c. c. c. 300 c. c. c. c. c. 300 c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. 30 c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. 300 c. c. c. c. c. 34,059,000 c. c. c. c. c. 300 c. c. c. c. c. 2011.

3) Accordingly, on September 26, 2011, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the product, and the Defendant recognized the defect of the product and promised to purchase the product again from the manufacturer to supply the normal product, but did not comply with this up to now. 4) The Plaintiff cancelled the contract for the supply of the product in this case on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation and demanded the Defendant to return the price of KRW 60,000,000 to the original state.

B. The defendant's assertion that he did not enter into a goods supply contract with the plaintiff, but merely purchased and imported the 300-to-land from the company of Canada, the plaintiff was an agent for the import business.

In addition, the article imported from June 201 is not equivalent to 60,000,000 won, and the quantity delivered from the plaintiff is limited to 20,000 PTPPs (if there are 10 caps, 10 caps), and the cause of the defect is also caused by the mistake in the custody of the plaintiff.

2. Therefore, it is possible to determine whether the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods with respect to the above 300 products.