1. The defendant shall pay 31,700,000 won to the plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of Category D 4 from the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant demanded the manufacture of the goods of this case on January 3, 2017, "No more than D No. 4, 2017," and the plaintiff notified that he would deliver the goods after completing the production of the goods at the request, thereby concluding a sales contract on the goods of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that he is obliged to pay 31,70,000 won to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant did not place orders from D1 to 3, but asserts that the plaintiff's claim is groundless since the contract and the order form for the goods of this case were not prepared, and the contract was not concluded.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As a matter of principle, a contract may be concluded only with the intent of the parties, and no separate method is required.

In the case of a sale, the object and the price of the sale are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of conclusion of the contract, and the method and standards to specify them ex post facto.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1842 Decided March 16, 2009, etc.). B.

In this case, in full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract or a production supply contract for the instant goods, taking into account the respective descriptions (including paper numbers) of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, witness E, and F’s testimony according to the purport of the entire pleadings:

① From January 26, 2013, the Defendant entered into a gold production contract with the Plaintiff several times, and has made an order form in various forms, such as a written order, written contract, goods, e-mail, etc.

② The article (Evidence A No. 1) written on the instant article contains KRW 31,70,000,000, and the Defendant Deputy Director, the head of the department, the director, and the executive director’s office have affixed seals on the letter of approval column, and sent it to the Plaintiff in such state.

③ On January 2017, Defendant Company’s working-level officer is similar to the instant goods.