1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. According to the plaintiff's expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, the defendant is about 547.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On September 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of expendable items, and pursuant to the said contract, from September 11, 2012 to March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied both 420 persons and 420 Sinpob to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant paid the price for the goods supplied on September 2012 and October 2012 to the Plaintiff, but did not pay KRW 44,046,60, which is the price for the goods supplied to the Plaintiff as shown in the attached Table after November 29, 2012.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the aforementioned KRW 44,046,00 (i.e., the two prices of KRW 159,580 x 270 x 480,000 x 2) and damages for delay.

B. Since November 29, 2012, the Defendant asserted that he was supplied with both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with the 110 plugb and the 110 plugb and there was no fact that he was supplied with the goods exceeding the above quantity.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff only 18,513,80 won (i.e., a pair of 1) prices of fluss 159,580 won x 110 flus x 480,000 won x 2) and damages for delay.

2. If the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 added the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff supplied plug to the defendant from November 29, 2012 to March 21, 2013, and the defendant supplied plugs to the defendant from November 29, 2012, the transaction list for plugs of 30, Jan. 10, 2013, the transaction list for plugs of 60, the transaction list for plugs of 60, March 21, 2013, the transaction list for plugs of 60, the plugs of 60, and the plugs of 60, the signature of the defendant's well-known and the nurse's signature to the defendant on February 20, 2013, and the plaintiff was issued from the National Tax Service to the defendant on February 31, 2013.