Therefore, the defendant is in a simultaneous performance relationship, barring any special circumstance, since the contract for the supply of goods is a bilateral contract with the plaintiff as the plaintiff's 53,613,400 won and its due date has expired.

Therefore, the defendant shall be liable for the immediate payment of goods from the plaintiff, and the delay damages shall occur if the payment is delayed.

As requested by the Plaintiff, from September 17, 2014 to May 14, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of the multi-payment.

2. The defendant's assertion argues to the purport that since the original price supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant is excessive to 28,371,700 won compared to other enterprises, the defendant agreed to adjust it downwards, and the original price of the original part supplied by the plaintiff is equivalent to 12,319,00 won, and the inventory goods that the plaintiff did not manufacture and sell the product is equivalent to 9,850,000 won, the above amount should be deducted.

However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to adjust the original price lower, and that there was a defect in the original unit supplied by the plaintiff, so the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.