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. The facts constituting the following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, and testimony of the first instance court witness B:

The plaintiff is a person who engages in the original wholesale retail business with the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a corporation established to engage in the manufacturing of clothing and the wholesale and retail business.

B. Around January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the price of KRW 7,527,300 (including value-added tax) for KRW 7,527,300, and issued a tax invoice with the above content on the same day.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the full-time payment of KRW 7,527,300 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from December 4, 2015 to the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The original body supplied by the Plaintiff was not suitable for the production of the goods produced by the Defendant due to the lack of flexibility, and the Defendant demanded return of the goods for the foregoing reasons, and the Plaintiff consented thereto and brought the original body back to China for the manufacture of clothing. 2) However, since the Plaintiff did not pay transportation charges and customs clearance fees incurred in the course of bringing the original body into Korea, the original body was placed in the customs house, it is no longer obligated for the Defendant to pay the original body to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, Gap evidence No. 3 and the testimony of the first instance court witness B, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff requested the return of the original unit supplied by the defendant around June 2015 to the defendant and the defendant agreed to return the original unit by the end of June 2015.

However, the above facts alone have the same defects as the defendant asserts in the original body supplied by the plaintiff.