1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Around August 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the Defendant for stuffs, supplied 7,797,900 won (including value-added tax) with the Defendant, and paid 7,797,900 won (including value-added tax) with the Defendant’s price. Unlike the Plaintiff’s order, the standard of stuffs supplied by the Defendant was produced differently from the standard ordered by the Plaintiff. Unlike the Plaintiff’s contents of the order, the Plaintiff asserted that the labeling under the Food Sanitation Act was printed on the lower board and claimed that the Plaintiff paid 5,446,200 won, the amount equivalent to the price of supplied goods for which the Plaintiff claimed defects, and the delay damages therefrom.

On the other hand, C, a business director of the defendant, was present in this court as a witness and stated in this court that "the defendant supplied the plaintiff with walves and walves and pointed out the part concerning wals and printing by telephone to C," and it cannot be ruled out that there was any defect alleged by the plaintiff in part of walves and walves supplied by the defendant.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the entries in the evidence Nos. 4 through 6, and the purport of the witness C of the trial of the party, i.e., ① the above statement: (a) the Defendant made a new title to the Plaintiff’s land register and made it a statement to the effect that “the Defendant would create a new title to the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff decided not to raise any problem with the goods already supplied,” and (c) the Plaintiff sent letters to the Defendant after the Defendant supplied the head of the party and the head of the party, and did not request the Defendant to compensate for damages, etc. to the already supplied head of the bank and the head of the party.” (c) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff used both the head of the bank and the head of the party supplied by the Defendant.