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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacturing business of chemical machinery under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person engaged in the wholesale and retail business of fishery equipment under the trade name of “D.”

B. On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied 100 parts of the instant goods (hereinafter “instant goods”) to KRW 34 million with the Defendant, but the down payment of KRW 8.6 million was 5 million on the day of the contract, intermediate payment of KRW 10 million, among the instant goods, entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff shall pay the remainder of KRW 5.4 million when supplying 5 million among the instant goods (hereinafter “the instant goods supply contract”).

C. On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff received 8.6 million won down payment from the Defendant. From October 2016, the Plaintiff supplied 500 out of the instant goods to the Defendant and received KRW 10 million from the intermediate payment on October 14, 2016, and supplied 500 of the instant goods to the Defendant until November 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 16.94 million for the unpaid goods under the instant goods supply contract (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 15.4 million for the remainder of KRW 15.4 million) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 31, 2017, the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, which is the day of the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, to the Plaintiff.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for the supply of goods more than twice, namely, a contract for the supply of goods more than twice, i.e., a contract for the supply of goods with the content that the Defendant would be provided with five hundred and five hundred and five hundred and six hundred and five hundred and six hundred and five hundred and five hundred and six hundred and five hundred and five hundred and five hundred and five hundred and five hundred and sixty million won for the supply of goods around October 2016.