Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The main point of the argument is that the Plaintiff supplied 46,501,270 won for oral manufacture at the Defendant’s request from March 16, 2017 to March 30, 2017. The Defendant paid KRW 7,40,000 for the total of KRW 5,00,000 on June 5, 2017, and KRW 7,440,000 on June 8, 2017, and did not pay KRW 39,061,270 for the remaining amount. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 39,061,270 for the supply price unpaid to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom.

Judgment

The following facts or circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensive consideration of the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence, witness Eul's testimony, i.e., the signature of the statement of transaction statement claiming that the plaintiff supplied the plaintiff with the deceased's satise team as the plaintiff is the signature of Eul who is not the defendant; ② although the plaintiff supplied the deceased's satise team at the request of the defendant, it is unclear that the plaintiff's assertion regarding the terms of the contract, such as the unit price or unit amount, delivery date, contract amount, etc.; ③ The defendant's demand for the supply to the plaintiff or the documents of disposition that can be known with the plaintiff's goods supply contract between the plaintiff and the defendant; ③ the defendant's 2,40,00 won paid to the plaintiff on June 8, 2017, which was alleged by the plaintiff to be the defendant's satise's new satise's c.