Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including separate numbers, if any) and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was discharged from office and supplied the original unit to the defendant at the request of the defendant, and the amount of goods not paid by the defendant was KRW 1,209,338 on August 5, 2018 (the payment date shall be October 5, 2018, the following month), KRW 18,241,945 on September 18 of the same year (the payment date shall be until November 5, 2018), KRW 5,868,306 on November 5, 2018 of the same year (the payment date shall be until January 5, 2019).

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 25,319,589, and damages for delay from the 5th of the following month from the delivery date to the full payment date, except in extenuating circumstances.

Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the 1st day of the following month of the delivery date of each of the above contract price, but the defendant bears damages for delay after the agreed payment date. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s defense: (a) the Defendant supplied the goods supplied by the Plaintiff to C, which is a trader; (b) the Defendant paid KRW 19,49,690 to C due to the defect in the original part; and (c) the Defendant was unable to use KRW 2,250,00 in the original part of the “ST3082” inventory (the “ST3082 failed to use the vertical slope lines); (d) so, the Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s defense was set off KRW 21,749,690, including the above KRW 19,49,690 and KRW 2,250,00 as a result of the defect.

Judgment

In full view of the existence and scope of the obligation to compensate for damages caused by defects, ① the existence and absence of the obligation to compensate for damages, ② the evidence as mentioned above, and the statement as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff was removed from office and there was a slope and a defect in the position of the Defendant’s goods supplied to C, a trading company, around September 17, 2018 and October 5 of the same year. The Defendant was the foregoing defect around October 10, 2018.