The plaintiff's goods payment obligation against the defendant does not exist more than KRW 9,536,692.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a wholesale and retail business of furniture with the trade name “E” in Daegu-gu D, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and distributes furniture.

B. On December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the Defendant to supply all of the households necessary for the business of the above households with the same Si/Gun/Gu with the business registration of the Plaintiff as the same Si/Gun/Gu.

(hereinafter “instant agency sales contract”). (c)

On December 2, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a performance sales guarantee agreement with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) whereby F will guarantee the payment of goods for the instant agency sales contract by setting the amount of KRW 20,000,000,000,000.

On August 22, 2019, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail demanding payment of KRW 12,038,092 of the unpaid amount of goods under the instant agency sales contract.

On September 10, 2019, the Defendant sent a content-certified mail demanding the Plaintiff to pay the remainder of KRW 9,536,692 by September 27, 2019, excluding KRW 2,501,40, the amount agreed upon between the original Defendant, out of the amount of unpaid goods.

E. On October 1, 2019, the Defendant filed a claim with F for the payment of KRW 12,038,092 for the guaranteed insurance benefit on account of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in KRW 12,90,600, and the sum of the supply values of the households to withdraw measures such as recall, etc. due to defects among the households supplied by the Defendant that the Plaintiff was unable to sell due to defects. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not obliged to pay the price for the goods to the Defendant before the exchange for return to the said defective households

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s instant agency against the Plaintiff.