1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 39,584,416 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from June 1, 2017 to April 3, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 8, 2016, C agricultural partnership (hereinafter “instant agricultural partnership”) issued a public notice of purchase of goods (including the basic amount at the time of bidding: 376,325,000 won (including value-added tax)) with respect to “D business” (hereinafter “instant business”), and the Plaintiff and the Defendant participated in the bidding. The Defendant was awarded a “qualified qualification” under the review and disposition, and entered into a contract with the instant agricultural partnership.

(hereinafter “instant commodity contract”). B.

After that, according to the instant goods contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract with the Plaintiff under which part of the goods to be supplied to the instant farming association under the instant goods contract (hereinafter “instant goods”) was manufactured and supplied by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid KRW 150,920,000 to the Defendant, which is a part of the goods to be supplied to the instant farming association; (b) “this case’s each goods” (hereinafter “instant goods”).

(hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for recognition”). 【The coapap facility contract of this case’s / [the grounds for recognition], Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 14, Eul evidence 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to whether each of the products of this case is supplied

A. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff completed the supply of each of the instant products to the Defendant under the instant colon facility contract. (2) The Defendant alleged that the most important facilities among each of the instant products were “Bable washing 1 sheet” (hereinafter “Bable washing 1”), and that the Plaintiff’s performance was considerably defective, and thus, recovered.

② Since then, the Plaintiff, with the Defendant’s approval on the performance of the Bab washing machine, supplied the said Bab washing machine directly to the instant agricultural cooperative, which is not the Defendant, on November 21, 2017, without any consultation with the Defendant.

(3) Ultimately, the defendant is supplied with a blue washing machine.