1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 19, 2015, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant for the supply of Titts 2,000 from the Defendant, and ordered the Defendant to make and supply Titts 2,00 won ( Chapter 4,800 won per 1 x 2,000 won) (hereinafter “the first order”). The Defendant manufactured and supplied Titts 2,00 to the Plaintiff around that time, and the Plaintiff paid 9.6 million won to the Defendant by October 19, 2015. (B) The Plaintiff supplied titts 2,000 won to the Defendant, but C returned all of them to the Plaintiff on the grounds that Titts 2,00 won was erroneous. (c) The Plaintiff again made and supplied Titts 2,200 to the Defendant, and the Defendant again made and supplied the orders to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the orders to the Plaintiff”).

On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant for the second order. On October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation of the payment of the remainder that “The payment of KRW 4.6 million will be made by November 6, 2015.” On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff further paid KRW 1 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff presented a first-lane sampling to the Defendant, and ordered Titrts. However, unlike sampling, the Defendant produced and supplied Titrts in a mixed bank, not a face-to-face. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was fully returned from C to Titrts supplied by the Defendant.

The Defendant, who was responsible for the Defendant, recognized the Defendant’s fault not produced as sampling, and re-produced and supplied Titts to the Plaintiff.

Since the second and second orders of Titrts are due to the defendant's mistake that did not produce Titrts as sampling in the first order, the defendant cannot claim the price for the second order against the plaintiff.

Therefore, it is true.