1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 17,930.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the wholesale and retail business of automobiles and industrial lubric oil, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs the sale of lub oil.

On October 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written order for 1,00 products of Vappropro 10, 1,000 products of “Vappropro 10,” and 5VCI Emitter products of “Vap pro 5.” (hereinafter “the product of this case”).

Although the name and quantity of the product are stated in the above order, the unit price is not stated.

The Defendant delivered the instant goods to the Plaintiff in accordance with the above order form, and the Plaintiff’s director C received the instant goods on October 25, 2016.

On November 22, 2016, the Plaintiff returned the instant goods to the Defendant. Around December 12, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared a written reason for return and sent it to the Defendant.

Around January 12, 2017, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 17,930,000 to the goods up to January 31, 2017,” refusing to receive the goods of this case.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the assertion of the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, witness D’s testimony, and the entire pleadings was issued by D (the Defendant’s director in charge of business sales, etc.) upon the request of D (the Defendant’s director in charge of the order of the instant product) to the effect that “If you send the order of the instant product to the Defendant so that the Plaintiff may deliver the instant product to Spanco by facsimile, the Plaintiff would request the delivery of the order of the tesen by facsimile.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff sent an order to the defendant by facsimile to request the supply of the product of this case, and the order shall include only the name and quantity of the product, but not the unit price.

Therefore, the above order alone cannot be deemed to have a specific and conclusive expression of intent, and it is merely an inducement to subscribe.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have concluded a supply contract for the instant goods.