1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, which is the cause of the instant claim, is a company engaged in the manufacturing of automated machines, wholesale and retail business, etc., and the Defendant is a company engaged in the research, development, manufacture, sale, etc. of parts and products related to PED lighting.

On April 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) visited C, D, and E at the meeting room of the Defendant’s head office after receiving a request for a provisional estimate from C, a Defendant’s employee, for the approval of the chief prosecutor’s equipment from GED type light and for the repair of light light type inspection equipment; and (b) concluded a contract for the supply of crops (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant’s employees, namely, the Plaintiff’s employees, by visiting C, D, and E at the meeting room of the Defendant’s head office; (c) one of C, D, and C, and C, D, and E; (d) two of C, C, and C, and C, C, C, and C, C, C, and C, and C, and C, a semi-finished product inspection machine of SMPPS F, and one of S, C, and C, a high temperature type equipment inspection machine (hereinafter “the instant equipment”).

Although the Plaintiff completed the manufacture of each of the instant equipment on or around May 2014 under the instant contract, the Defendant refused to acquire each of the instant equipment and pay the purchase price.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 204,934,100 for the cost of manufacturing each of the instant equipment.

2. According to the evidence No. 7 (including additional numbers), it is recognized that the Plaintiff received data for the manufacture of each of the instant equipment from C, who is an employee of the Defendant, and then sent a temporary estimate for the manufacture of each of the instant equipment to C around April 8, 2014.

However, there is no dispute between the parties or each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7 (including the number of each branch number if there is a separate number) and the whole purport of the pleadings, namely, the following circumstances: ① there is no provision regarding the important part of the contract, such as the number and details of supply equipment between the plaintiff and the defendant in relation to the production of each of the instant equipment, the price of each of the equipment, the method of payment, and the delivery of equipment, and ② the plaintiff around May 2014.