A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in collecting, processing, supplying, selling, etc. the abolition, and the Defendant is a person who supplies “B” a trade name.

B. D, operated by C, by the end of 2009, was paid in advance to the Defendant for the abolition and received the withdrawal from the Defendant, and there remains KRW 29,316,470 as of the end of 2009.

C. Around the end of 2009, the Plaintiff acquired the advance payment of KRW 29,316,470 from D to the Defendant. On December 28, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to additionally pay KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant and to receive the discontinuance from the Defendant.

After that, the Plaintiff received the discontinuance from the Defendant until September 2013, and the discontinuance of the supply was suspended under the condition that the Plaintiff remains KRW 65,996,125 as of September 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff for the abolition of the instant claim on or around December 28, 2009; pay advance payment; and if the transaction is interrupted, the Plaintiff was abolished after entering into a contract to liquidate the abolished amount; and the transaction was discontinued on or around September 2013. Since the remainder of advance payment was KRW 65,996,125, and the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 7, 2017 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the instant claim, which is the date of complete payment, to the date of complete payment.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim since he calculated the amount of abolition by reducing the weight of the discontinuance supplied by the defendant at his own discretion, but the whole purport of the arguments as a whole are considered as follows.