1. Hearing aids, etc. supplied by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from April 2012 to July 2013.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company engaged in the manufacture, import, and sale of hearing aids and other devices and equipment related to hearing as its main business. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures and sells hearing aids and other devices related to hearing, such as hearing aids, with the trade name “B (formerly Change: C).”

B. From May 201 to July 2013, the Plaintiff was supplied with goods, such as burners and hearing aids, by the Defendant and sold them to consumers.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid all the price for the goods supplied by the defendant, and rather paid more than 582,400 won, so there is no obligation to pay for the goods unpaid to the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s assertion entered into a goods supply contract with the Plaintiff on September 29, 201 (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”). The Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with a hearing aid product or a hearing aid product in the manner that the Plaintiff pays the purchase price to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant sold oophones on the premise that the Plaintiff would pay the purchase price. As such, the Defendant cannot return oophones already supplied to the Plaintiff and refuse to pay the purchase price.

Therefore, even though the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with goods or oophones equivalent to KRW 50,023,00, the Defendant received only KRW 22,901,400 from the Plaintiff, and thus, sought payment of KRW 27,121,60, which is the difference.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion as to whether to recognize the price of oophones is premised on the fact that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the price even if the real product was not supplied to the Defendant. However, the witness D’s testimony alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that there was such an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.