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. The fact that the Plaintiff supplied transit equivalent to the sum of KRW 5,242,970 from October 1, 2018 to October 27, 2018 under a supply contract of alcoholic beverages between the Defendant and the Defendant does not conflict between the parties, or that the Plaintiff provided transit equivalent to the sum of KRW 5,242,970 pursuant to a supply contract of alcoholic beverages between the Defendant and the Defendant may be acknowledged by taking account of the descriptions in subparagraphs A

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,242,970 for liquor and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 19, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's light oil supplied to the defendant is an inappropriate product, and there was a problem that fuel is newly stored in C Truck with the main fuel, and even if the above truck was repaired, it is not operated, and it is replaced with fuel origin. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim is based on the premise that the Defendant is liable for the warranty or nonperformance due to the Plaintiff’s supply of defective goods. The Plaintiff’s claim is against the Defendant’s claim and the Defendant’s claim for damages. We examine whether the supply of defective goods to the Defendant is inappropriate or not.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-2, and 4 (Evidence Nos. 6) of Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 2-2, and 4 (Evidence No. 6) of Eul, the Institute may recognize the fact that the test of diesel samples collected on October 23, 2018 from C Truck, mainly supplied by the Plaintiff, conducted a test of diesel samples collected on the part of the Plaintiff. As a result, the Institute has determined that “the sample is inappropriate because water and sediment are mixed “0.10, volume of volume (the quality standard is 0.02, volume below 0.0),” and D Co. 1 has determined that “the sample is inappropriate because large quantities of water and sediment are verified on the fuel pen of the above truck.”

However, each of the above evidence set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 13 and arguments.