1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are companies engaged in the distribution business of agricultural products.

The Plaintiff, using the Defendant’s letter of credit, traded with the content that the Plaintiff would recover the price of the said letter of credit by importing sirens and mers, etc. in the Defendant’s name and selling imported sirens, etc.

In the course of this transaction, the Plaintiff imported a number of 2-3 times as it was compared to that of the year in 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff's assertion to the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion to the judgment, the defendant committed an agreement with the plaintiff that "to allow the plaintiff to deliver all the sirens imported to a lot," around November 2013, and the plaintiff imported sirens up to two to three times of the volume imported by the plaintiff in Pyeongtaek, around 2014.

However, the Plaintiff had no choice but to sell the inventory at salt prices, and accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 386,450,000 in total, such as the loss of sirens, personnel expenses, and warehouse rent.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 240,774,380, which was not settled to the Defendant in the course of transaction with the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 98,650,620, which was a part of the remainder of KRW 145,675,620, which offsets the said unpaid amount from the damages suffered by the Plaintiff (=386,450,000 - 240,774,380).

Judgment

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s import of a siren more than that of the ordinary year was based on the Defendant’s promise, or that the Defendant was liable for the Defendant’s payment of the obligation to enable the Plaintiff to deliver a siren to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, in light of the transaction process of the instant case, the Plaintiff imported a large quantity of sirens under the vague expectation that they will be supplied to large retailers according to their own decision. However, the Plaintiff is expected to do so.