1. Defendant A’s KRW 45,068,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from February 14, 2015 to April 22, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 2014, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the manufacture and sale of clothes, was ordered by LAF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) to receive 600 copies of Category 1.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested Defendant A to supply original and subsidiary materials while requesting the processing of the above line. The delivery date was set on September 30, 2014; the delivery date was set at KRW 16,432,00 (Chapter 632 x 26,00 won per head).

B. On October 2014, Defendant A supplied stacks to the Plaintiff after the delivery date, and multiple defects were discovered during the tallying process.

C. Although the delivery date was extended to correct the defect of the above line, the defendant A failed to correct the defect properly, the non-party Company notified the plaintiff of the refusal of delivery.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 9 (including each number), Gap's testimony, Eul's whole purport of pleading

2. Determination

A. The non-party company that the plaintiff's assertion that he produced and supplied to the plaintiff was refused to supply a large number of defects, and the defendant refused to supply the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant shall pay 48,348,00 won [64,780,000 won of the delivery price (102,50 won x 632) - 16,432,00 won of the contract price of this case] and damages for delay caused to the plaintiff. The defendant Eul is jointly and severally liable for damages since the defendant Eul is in a partnership with the defendant Eul.

B. As to whether Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B was in a partnership relationship with Defendant A, it is not sufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B on the sole basis of the statement of health unit and evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B cannot be accepted without the need to examine the remainder

C. According to the above facts of recognition of the claim 1 liability for damages against Defendant A, the Plaintiff is liable for damages from the non-party company due to the defects of the air conditioners supplied by Defendant A to the Plaintiff.