2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Plaintiff received an order from the Defendant for the manufacture and supply of 5,00 PBA (PBA) 5,00 units, one of the mobile phone radio shocking electric components (hereinafter “instant components”) and supplied the Defendant on August 12, 2014; the remaining 3,464 units to the Defendant on August 14, 2014; the supply price of the instant components is 53,650,000 won; the aggregate amount is 59,015,000 won if the value-added tax is included; the payment date for the instant components was due on September 20, 2014; or the Defendant did not pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff by the said payment date does not conflict between the parties; or the purport of Gap evidence 1, 2, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, 1-2, 4-1, 4-2, and 2-1 of witness testimony as a whole.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 59,015,000 won for the goods unpaid to the plaintiff, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed in the Commercial Act from September 21, 2014 to November 9, 2015, on which the copy of the complaint in this case is served to the defendant from September 21, 2014, and 15% per annum prescribed in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) The defendant's assertion

피고는 원고로부터 이 사건 부품을 공급받고 다른 회사들로부터 어댑터와 배터리 등을 공급받아서 '경우'라는 회사에서 조립한 다음 무선충전기를 만들어서 피고가 다시 이를 공급받기로 하였다. 그런데 원고가 공급한 이 사건 부품은 QI 인증의 요건을 충족하지 못하는 제품이어서 구형 스마트폰 몇 종류만 무선충전이 가능하고 나머지 스마트폰에 대해서는 무선충전이 전혀 되지 않았다. 따라서 피고는 오히려 원고로부터 QI 인증의 요건도 갖추지 못하고 하자 있는 이 사건 부품을 공급한 것에 대한 손해배상을 받아야 하고 원고가 주장하는 물품대금을 지급할 의무가 없다.

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed to have supplied PBA or supplied defective PBA to the Defendant even though the Plaintiff agreed to supply PBA meeting the requirements for certification of QI, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① On March 9, 2015, D, the actual representative of the Defendant Company, was unable to pay the price due to the shortage of funds in the e-mail sent to the Plaintiff on March 9, 2015, and said D would receive the sales proceeds of radio shock and pay the price preferentially to the Plaintiff. It did not mention that the instant part failed to meet QI standards or was defective.

② If the instant part from the time when the Plaintiff was supplied with the instant part by the Plaintiff on the condition that QI would meet the requirements for certification, namely, QI’s sampling prior to the mass production of the parts, it appears that there was no procedure for checking whether QI’s specifications have been satisfied and whether there was any such procedure. Rather, if the instant part was made in the present condition of the instant part, it was in line with the conditions required by the Defendant at the time of the commencement of mass production, and at least, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant accepted the specifications or specifications of the parts and provided the instant part from the Plaintiff.

QI’s standard seems to have been made to ensure that smartphones produced on the basis of WPC technology are able to be radio shocked. However, in fact, even though WPC technology was provided on the previous model by smartphone manufacturing, it may not be provided by means of its choice in a new model. Ultimately, it cannot be concluded that radio shocks using the parts of this case are able to provide radio shock a few types of mobile phones and do not meet QI’s standard with radio shock on the remainder of smartphones.

④ The Defendant asserts that the model name of the parts to be supplied by the Plaintiff was “SJ-1301” and that the specifications of the product were “satisfying: one’s own inducement method: QI’s own inducement method.” However, the parts are completely different from the parts of the instant case and are sent to the Defendant for reference, and the specifications of the parts were not made for the Defendant, but were made for marketing in other companies in January 2013. In light of the above circumstances, the testimony in B is reliable.

⑤ Product description for Defendant Company appears to be “A” No. 5-2 product proposal (Tx Mole). There is no reference to QI specification.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.