A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff supplied the product to the defendant by October 31, 2013. The defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant did not pay KRW 47,400,002 out of the price, and there is no counter-proof.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant has the intention to pay 47,400,002 won to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's defense is a defense that the defendant agreed to deduct 27,541,250 won from the price of the goods because of defective goods among the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. Thus, it is not sufficient to acknowledge it only by the statement of evidence No. 1, and there was any defective goods differently.

There is no evidence to prove that part of the price should be deducted.

Therefore, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

2. Determination on the claim for damages

A. In fact, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have transacted the products produced at the Plaintiff’s Daegu factory and supplied them to the Defendant again. Around 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to install and operate the Jingu factory for the Plaintiff’s post-processing, but the machinery was carried in by the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to provide the Defendant with the equipment for the installation of machinery.

On September 2010, the Plaintiff, on the surface of mobile phone glass AFrowing or Anti Fringer cing. On the surface, 2010, the Plaintiff carried two hVC-2050DDA HOmms as Defendant Daegu factory, bringing two studs into the place where the Defendant Daegu factory is scheduled to install a clean studs.

Since then, the defendant did not install a clean studio. Accordingly, the plaintiff operates the machinery of this case.