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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells electricity, PED, electronic parts, etc., and the Defendant is a company that runs a construction business.

B. Around June 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to supply equipment necessary for the construction of a dormitory in the U.S. military unit located in Pyeongtaek-si built by the Defendant, and around June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a written estimate to the Defendant, stating the type 9 of the lighting equipment necessary for the said construction site, the total amount of 105 goods and the total amount of 172,896,000 won (excluding value-added tax).

C. On June 15, 2015, the Defendant received the said quotation, and ordered a total of 1005 lighting fixtures (hereinafter “instant goods”) to the Plaintiff as indicated in the said quotation. The Plaintiff manufactured the instant goods from around that time and delivered the instant goods to the Defendant on July 31, 2015.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff issued a copy of the business registration certificate issued by the Defendant as of July 20, 2015, and issued a tax invoice of KRW 173,080,000 as the recipient of the Defendant on July 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The asserted Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 190,38,00 for the instant goods (including value-added tax) to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant, on June 15, 2015, ordered a dormitory construction project under construction to a approximate quantity due to the difficulty in determining the necessary quantity as a result of a design change, and agreed to determine the quantity to be supplied later between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. On July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff ordered the Plaintiff to supply the instant goods as indicated in the initial order form. The Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to the Plaintiff as if the form of the instant goods was different from the content ordered by the Defendant, but the Plaintiff did not comply with the request, thereby constituting the final order quantity (60% of the initial order quantity).