Although the defendant asserts that it is only KRW 14,827,00, and asserts that it is only KRW 14,827,000, there is no objection to the above fact-finding.

If so, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 16,057,00 for fishery products and delay damages from July 1, 2014, which is the following day after the claim for the payment was made at the time of the final supply.

The fact that each damages for delay is not added to the transaction by day, the amount received from the defendant is appropriated to the original, and the plaintiff's claim is made within the scope of recognition.

The causes of the plaintiff's claim concerning the claim for outstanding amounts and the claim related to falling under the cancellation of the settlement agreement are as follows.

Since the settlement agreement (No. 1) was made by the defendant's deception, it shall be revoked in accordance with Article 110 (1) of the Civil Code.

The Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff had made a decision to grant a license to the Plaintiff, was effective due to the above revocation, would be 18,210,500 won for fishery products as of May 8, 2014.

In addition, from May 9, 2014 to June 30, 2014, 1,134,000 won, which the Plaintiff supplied to the defendant free of charge, was the unjust enrichment of the defendant without any legal ground by the cancellation. Thus, it is claimed to return the unjust enrichment.

However, examining the plaintiff's assertion that the settlement agreement on the settlement of the full payment of May 8, 2014 was made by the defendant's deception, it is insufficient to recognize it only by the statement of evidence No. 8 and the testimony of witness C, and there is no other proof of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's respective claims premised on the cancellation of the settlement agreement are without merit.

The defendant's assertion of set-off defense is the case.