The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendants, who engage in wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “D”, continuously ordered 40,000 “F” each year from April 23, 2014 to supply the Plaintiff who engaged in a manufacturing business with the trade name of “E”. However, in violation of the above contract, the Defendants supplied only 7,970 within the scope of the contract to the Defendants by failing to place an order for the volume of the contract up to the date.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages of 180,075,00 won [72,030 won [8,000 won for contract (80,000 won x 2 years) - actual supply quantity of 7,970 won]] and damages for delay suffered by the Plaintiff in violation of the above contract] x 2,500 won (minimum expected profit per one unit of around 2,500 won) and damages for delay.

The main point of the Defendants’ assertion is that the Defendants discussed the projects for joint development with the Plaintiff’s “F” awareness and supply of the said awareness, etc., and did not enter into a contract as alleged by the Plaintiff, and only traded with the Plaintiff in the method of frequently ordering the necessary awareness volume by e-mail.

Even if a contract was concluded between the Defendants and the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff, the said contract was concluded by the payment performance letter dated January 10, 2015, and thus, the Defendants are not liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred due to the nonperformance of the said contract.

Judgment

If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap 1 through 3 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), 5 through 7, 9, and 1 through 3, and 5, it is recognized that the defendants continued to order and supply the plaintiff with a total of 80,000 (40,000 per annum) for two years from April 23, 2014 to August 2014, and that the defendants provided 7,970 only to the plaintiff until August 2014.

However, each of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 19, Eul evidence No. 8 and 9 shall be considered as a whole for the purpose of the whole pleadings.