1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity that sells dry products, such as glass and Dolass, to wholesale and retail, and the Defendant is a business entity that supplied the Plaintiff with dry products.

B. On May 20, 2012, the Plaintiff was supplied with 200 boxes (15,000 foot boxes, 165,000 foot boxes) equivalent to KRW 32,00,000 from the Defendant (15,000), and the Plaintiff returned 155,000 foot boxes among them, as there is no good condition.

After that, the Plaintiff continued to engage in continuous transactions with the Defendant until January 2017.

C. Among those Dos, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had not received the price of KRW 32,985,000 from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the goods under Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017Kadan24478, and that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 32,60,000 to the Defendant in installments four times on March 9, 2018” was constituted a judicial compromise in the said lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 5, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On May 20, 2012, when the Plaintiff was supplied with 32,00,000 won by the Defendant, the Plaintiff demanded to return the entire amount of 15,000 foot boxes, but the Defendant received only 100 won of 155,000 foot boxes, and did not receive 165,000 won of 165,00 won of 100 foot boxes. The Plaintiff was supplied to the customer with 16,50,000 won of 16,50,000 won of 165,50,000 won of 16,50,000 won of 16,50,000 won of 165,00 won of 165,00 won of 100 x 100) and 19,500,000 damages for delay.

3. On May 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the instant claim on the premise that the Defendant’s 165,000 foot boxes supplied to the Plaintiff did not have the value of the goods, but, in full view of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to accept such a claim as above.