1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that imports and sells automated machines, such as electric mortars, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures coffee and coffee plates and sells them to the Republic of Korea and abroad.

B. From January 2014, the Plaintiff was supplied with a cargo license produced by the Defendant from the Defendant to the Defendant and maintained the transactional relationship in which the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant after combining it with a straight-type terminal (DC-Mor) that he imported. However, the transaction method was in the form of sending the order form or communicating by telephone once the Defendant sent the order form for total quantity of 3 to 4 months to the Plaintiff.

C. On August 8, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a purchase order stating that: (a) the supply date on October 2016; (b) November 1 of the same year; and (c) January 12 of the same year; and (b) KRW 2,000, 18,400,000 (= 18,000, i.e., direct lengther amount of x 18,000,000 (= 2,000 x 9,000 / 1; 2,000 x 2,000 x / 200 / 1); and (c) the Defendant orders the Plaintiff to purchase the volume-added tax separately).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). . [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) or video, Gap witness’s partial testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On August 2016, A, who is the Plaintiff’s employee in charge of the Plaintiff, received a written purchase order stating the delivery date from the Defendant from October 2016, and immediately notified the Defendant that the delivery may be made from November 2016, since it takes three months for the import of the direct marter by phone to B, who is the employee in charge of the Defendant. Accordingly, the delivery date was changed from November 2016 to November 200.

According to the main claim, the plaintiff was preparing for the supply of the goods to the defendant by importing the direct spawn from the large enterprise, but the defendant refused to accept the goods. Thus, the defendant is entitled to receive the goods.