A. The Plaintiff operates a salt farm at his domicile, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs salt manufacturing business, etc.

B. On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell the sun-dried 334 tons of sun-dried salt owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sun-dried salt”) at KRW 150,300,000 (contract amounting to KRW 15,030,000,000 within one day after goods are verified, and KRW 135,270,000,000, within one day after goods are verified, respectively, to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff delivered the instant sun-dried salt to the Defendant.

C. On October 21, 2014, according to the instant sales contract, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 15,030,000,000, and on December 10, 2014, instead of paying KRW 53,000,000 among the remainder, the Defendant repaid the amount equivalent to the same amount out of the Plaintiff’s loans to the New Nonghyup Branch of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of Korea.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder amount of KRW 82,270,000 due under the sales contract of this case (i.e., KRW 135,270,000 - KRW 53,00,000) and delay damages, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, since the provisional attachment order for sun-dried salt of this case exists with the Plaintiff as the obligor, the Plaintiff must deliver the sun-dried salt of this case to the Defendant after its revocation, and this is related to the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder to the Plaintiff, so long as the provisional attachment is not revoked, the Defendant did not have the obligation to

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion that there exists a provisional attachment order against the Plaintiff as the debtor regarding the sun-dried salt of this case, and rather, according to the evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the Defendant under the sales contract of this case as the preserved right.