The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant regarding the production and delivery of plastic products (hereinafter “instant supply contract”). The Plaintiff agreed to pay the price within 60 days if the Plaintiff supplied the products to the Defendant and claimed the price by issuing an electronic tax invoice.

B. In accordance with the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff supplied the product amounting to KRW 54,847,760, which is the total amount of KRW 54,847,760,00, in total, KRW 10,411,30 on May 27, 2019, KRW 10, KRW 10,61, KRW 300 on June 12, 2019, KRW 12,594, KRW 230 on July 12, 2019, and KRW 3,902,80 on August 3, 2019, and claimed the payment by issuing an electronic tax invoice on the last day of each transaction. The Plaintiff received KRW 20,47,760 on October 11, 2019 from the Defendant. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28603, Nov. 28, 2019>

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 34,400,000 payable for the goods (i.e., total amount of KRW 54,847,760 - 20,447,760) and damages for delay.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, at the time of entering into the instant supply contract, the Defendant provided gold punishment directly produced by the Defendant and had the Plaintiff deliver the product. Upon the termination of the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff bears the duty to return gold to the Defendant, and this is in the concurrent performance relationship with the Defendant’s duty to pay the goods to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s refusal of payment may be allowed until the penalty is returned from the Plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff bears the obligation to return the penalty against the Defendant’s assertion, and the Defendant’s assertion on the premise of it is not acceptable.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant 34,400.