1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,915,100 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 30, 2014 to June 1, 2015.

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the products of PE lighting from 2012 to February 28, 2014, and the Defendant’s price for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff from February 28, 2014 to February 28, 2014 is recognized as 19,915,100 won, and barring special circumstances, the Defendant, as the Plaintiff seeks, defense against the Plaintiff regarding the scope of the Defendant’s obligations from August 30, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of the complaint of this case, as the Plaintiff seeks, “27,274,400 won and delay damages therefrom” from the complaint of this case, and the Plaintiff sought for the Defendant’s delivery of 19,915,100 won and delay damages therefrom at the rate of KRW 15,250,000 per annum, the purport of the claim and damages are modified.

2. The defendant's assertion and its determination as to the above, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff returned to the plaintiff due to the defect in the lighting products supplied to the defendant, and the plaintiff refused to return the products, and that the damage was caused to the defendant due to the defect in the products.

The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that there is a defect in the products supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and the Defendant did not apply for the appraisal of defects in order to prove the defect in the products, and did not apply for the appraisal as well as did not appear on the date of pleading;

According to Gap evidence No. 3 (Contract for the Supply of Goods), the plaintiff and the plaintiff.