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. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Plaintiff started to supply agricultural products to Schlage operated by the Defendant from November 3, 2015. At the time, the Plaintiff separately supplied agricultural products equivalent to KRW 2,378,00 in the name of the Defendant’s sales subsidy under the condition that the Defendant’s sales subsidy for three years is maintained, and thereafter, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the transaction. As of January 8, 2016, the fact that the Defendant’s sales payment for the goods was KRW 6,277,000 is recognized.

Therefore, the Defendant did not directly prepare to the Plaintiff an agreement on the sales subsidy of KRW 8,655,00 [the amount of KRW 2,378,00 (the Defendant’s 2,378,000) for agricultural products equivalent to KRW 2,378,00].

Even if the plaintiff supplied the above agricultural products to the defendant or his employee B, the defendant is obligated to pay the above agricultural products to the plaintiff.

) As requested by the Plaintiff, 6,277,00 won and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from March 3, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day on which the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant, shall be liable to pay the Defendant damages for delay calculated from March 3, 2016 to

The defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant's refusal to return the agricultural products equivalent to KRW 1,372,50,000, which are not well sold or defective to the plaintiff, did not have a duty to pay for the agricultural products equivalent to the above returned amount, even though the defendant properly requested the return of the agricultural products.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff supplied defective agricultural products to the Defendant and requested the Plaintiff to return the said agricultural products. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is accepted.