A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells tools, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells automobile parts.

B. From the second half of 2010, the Plaintiff supplied the automobile-related tools to the Defendant, and received payment from the Defendant in the month following the delivery.

2. The parties’ assertion and the Plaintiff at issue of the instant case are the first-B.

Under the premise that the transactional relationship entered in the claim is in accordance with the goods supply contract, the defendant is entitled to pay the unpaid amount of goods.

As to this, the defendant 1-B.

The plaintiff asserts that the transactional relationship in the port was in accordance with the import agency contract for the automobile parts, one of the automobile parts, from the "B" companies that are companies in the same-sex motor vehicle in China, and the defendant is only obligated to pay the imported admission fees to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the issues of this case are the interpretation of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

3. The interpretation of the relevant legal doctrine is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating it, and in the event that there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of the legal act between the parties and thus the interpretation of the parties is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the legal act, the motive and background of such juristic act, the purpose to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da69804, Oct. 29, 2015). 4. Determination

(a) The following facts may be admitted, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence of 1 to 11, Eul evidence of 1 to 5 (including various numbers), and the whole purport of the pleadings:

1) The Plaintiff’s supply amount to the Defendant and the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff are as shown in the attached Table 1.

The plaintiff.