A. On March 12, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made and supplied an MPN-101 to the Defendant. However, the minimum quantity per each ordered order of the Defendant (in the case of a prototype, the minimum quantity is not restricted) and the unit price is 19,300 United Nations (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On March 10, 2010, the Plaintiff, prior to the instant contract, supplied 50 houses for preferential sample (in equivalent to KRW 965,00, equivalent to KRW 13,127,377) (hereinafter “instant goods”) to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid the price within one month from the date of supply, and was also drafted an order on May 31, 2010 to supply additional 1,00 houses for sample sample for Japanese use on the premise that it is possible to do business of drawing up for Japanese use.

C. On April 8, 2010, the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to the Defendant, on the other hand, Japan’s M&N-101, and on April 6, 2010, the Defendant again supplied the instant goods to the Nonparty on April 20, 2010 (25,000N per model name: MPN-101, 25,000 per unit). The Defendant again supplied the instant goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Nonparty Company on April 20, 2010.

The goods of this case supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant had a normal operation map, and the defendant did not pay the price to the plaintiff after May 8, 2010, which is the payment deadline. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to receive the occupational map from the Internet website on June 9, 2010, but the period of use was limited until August 30, 2010, and again, on September 14, 2010, the guidance that was made on the job (the use deadline: October 14, 2010) to the defendant on the e-mail. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22426, Oct. 14, 2010>