1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures and sells paper stuffs, packing materials, etc., and the Defendant is a company that manufactures quasi-drugs, such as health supplies and dental supplies.

B. On February 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to produce samples of the said stuff in order to purchase stuffs, which are the subsidiary materials of the futures sheet package.

The plaintiff could not produce sample free of charge due to the cost of production of sample, but could produce sample under the condition that it will be supplied if there is no error in the production of sample, and the defendant consented thereto.

C. On February 2015, the Plaintiff made sampling and confirmed it to the Defendant, and produced stuffs upon the Defendant’s request for production. The price of the goods is KRW 6,437,750.

The Plaintiff intended to deliver the above-mentioned stuff to the Defendant, but the Defendant refused to supply goods on the ground that it is difficult to do so and did not pay the price for goods.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,437,750 for goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 25, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the payment date of the above goods.

As to this, the Defendant alleged that the design and color of sampling received from the Plaintiff did not request the production of stuffing. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the above macroscopic evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings can be seen as follows: ① around December 2015, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of the price for the goods, provided that the Plaintiff would be supplied when granting an estimate in special circumstances; and that the Defendant refused the supply on the ground that there was no funds to be paid, even if the Plaintiff sent a special book as a domain, and ② the Defendant refused the supply on the ground that there was no funds to be