A. On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply pigs, and supplied pigs to the Defendant from around that time to October 19, 2015.

B. On October 28, 2015, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 115,625,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the payment amount of the price of the pigs supplied as above between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff until November 29, 2015, up to December 29, 2015, KRW 30 million until January 29, 2016, KRW 30,000,000 until January 29, 2016, and KRW 35,625,000 until March 29, 2016, respectively (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. The Plaintiff recovered from the Defendant KRW 115,625,00, KRW 26,644,438 around January 6, 2016, and KRW 7,848,505 around January 25, 2016.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 81,132,057 (i.e., KRW 115,625,00 - KRW 26,644,438 - KRW 7,848,505), among the Plaintiff’s claim, KRW 70,165,107 and KRW 4,540,107 among them (i.e., KRW 70,165,107 - KRW 30,625,000 - KRW 35,625,00) from January 30, 206, KRW 300 from March 1, 2016, KRW 35,625,000 from March 30, 2016 to the date of full payment of the annual interest rate of KRW 50% from the day after each of the instant complaint was served.

B. The Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay from October 29, 2015 for KRW 70,165,107. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant lost the benefit of each due date as stipulated in the instant agreement, thereby bearing the obligation to pay damages for delay from October 29, 2015. Thus, it is difficult to accept the claim for damages for delay beyond the recognized scope.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the Plaintiff’s claim within the above scope of recognition.