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

However, in the process of calculating the cost for the development of new products, the plaintiff knew that the price of the goods in this case of the defendant company was higher than two times the price of the other company, and resisting this to the defendant company, the defendant company recognized the error on November 17, 2015 and presented the price of goods reduced to the plaintiff.

Defendant C was in charge of the conclusion of the above contract as a purchaser. Considering that there was a gap between the representative director of the Defendant Company and the representative director, it seems that the Defendants conspired to induce the Plaintiff to supply the goods of this case at a price higher than the market price.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the discount price presented by the Defendant Company around November 17, 2015 and the cumulative purchase quantity multiplied by the cumulative purchase quantity, and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The fact of recognition is that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant Company to be supplied with the instant goods from the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant contract”). From around 2011 to July 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods from the Defendant Company and paid the Defendant Company totaling KRW 2,570,292,839 as the price of the goods; and the fact that the Defendant C, who was an employee of the Plaintiff in charge of the process of entering into the instant contract, negotiated the price of the instant goods with the Defendant Company does not conflict between the parties.