1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 9,260,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from December 16, 2016 to November 22, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the party is that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling liquid energy beverages in electronic commerce with the trade name “B,” and the Defendant is a company engaged in manufacturing, selling and subdividing medicine, importing and subdividing food, importing and subdividing food.

B. Around 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment production contract with the Defendant, under which the Plaintiff orders functional health foods and general food to the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment production contract with the content that the Defendant would produce and supply such functional health foods to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(B) The title holder of the instant contract formally operates “B” with the Plaintiff at the time of the formally, but from the end of December, 2015, the joint business between them is terminated, and there is no dispute over the fact that the contracting party is the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the contract entered into by “B” as an entrepreneur regardless of the title holder of the contract is deemed to have been concluded by the Plaintiff.

From January 2015 to May 2016, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to name D “D” (hereinafter “instant product”) which is a liquid energy beverage from January 2015 to May 2016. Under the instant contract, the Defendant produced the instant product and supplied the Plaintiff the product amounting to KRW 180,795,934 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

가. 원고의 주장 피고가 공급한 이 사건 제품에 누액(淚液)이 발생하는 하자(이하 ‘이 사건 하자’라 한다)가 발생하였는바, 피고는 이 사건 계약상 하자 없는 완전한 제품을 공급할 의무를 위반하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the non-performance of obligation, and ① the occurrence of the defect in this case is attributable to the defendant.