1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is rendered in accordance with Paragraph (1) of this Article.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 14,164,660 for goods not paid by the Defendant by October 17, 2017, and this is examined.

B. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur engaged in the manufacture and wholesale business of powder powder, portrait materials, etc. with the trade name of “C” and supplied the Defendant with primary materials from February 2, 2014 to December 2, 2015. The Defendant paid KRW 3,00,000 out of the price of the said goods to the Plaintiff on October 17, 2017, and paid KRW 14,164,660 out of the price of the remaining goods, and the fact that there remains no dispute between the parties or that there remains KRW 14,164,60 among the price of the said goods, can be acknowledged by the purport of each entry and all pleadings set forth in the evidence No. 2-3.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 14,164,60, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from October 18, 2017 to March 15, 2018, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case (certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation) sought by the Plaintiff, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

As to this, the defendant supplied by the plaintiff.

It argues that there is no obligation to pay the price for the goods because the goods mentioned in the port are considerably good and there is a defect that is superior to the goods of other companies.

The defendant bears the burden of proving the defect in the goods supplied by the plaintiff, and although the defendant stated the evidence submitted by the defendant in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, and 12, the circumstances known by the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, namely, the defendant did not mention the defect in a reasonable period after receiving the goods from the plaintiff, and rather agreed to pay the goods to the plaintiff who continued to urge the payment of the goods. The sample requested by the defendant for analysis is a considerable period from the time of supply by the plaintiff.