1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's arguments and the defendant are companies running automobile parts manufacturing business, etc.

Upon entering into a contract for automobile parts, the Defendant received a written estimate from many companies, and then appointed a business entity that submitted a written estimate at the lowest price as a contracting party. The Plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the Defendant from around 2001 to the above method.

However, pursuant to Article 4(2)7 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, even if the Defendant did not “an act of determining a subcontract price at a price lower than the lowest tender price without any justifiable reason when concluding a subcontract through competitive bidding,” the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to agree on the supply unit price with the amount which was significantly reduced compared to the amount stated in the written estimate by taking advantage of its superior position in the transaction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the difference between the original estimated and the agreed delivery price, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.

2. In the judgment, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied a number of items of motor vehicles to the Defendant from around 2001 to September 201.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant entered into a supply contract with the plaintiff through competitive bidding, and that the defendant forced the plaintiff to enter into a contract with a supply unit price lower than the original supply unit price originally estimated by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant appears to have concluded a supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on a written estimate, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not subject to Article 4(2)7 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.

(b).