A. A. Around May 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a multimodal transport contract between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant cargo”) to transport the Defendant’s cargo at the port of Pyeongtaek in the Republic of Korea and deliver it to the consignee located in Russia (hereinafter “instant transport contract”). The Defendant notified the Defendant as the volume of the instant cargo 3,700CM and calculated the freight rate of the instant transport contract at USD 1,68,089.32.

B. On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff loaded the instant cargo at Pyeongtaek Port. The actual volume of the instant cargo was 4,319.679CM exceeding 619.679CM, rather than prior notice, and the Defendant agreed to pay USD 50,000 in additional fares.

C. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the instant cargo transport. The Defendant stated USD 279,372.95, equivalent to the increased volume of the instant cargo 619.679CBM, as USD 279,372.95, as the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff was “$ 279,381.06, as it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the calculation, and thus, is corrected.

US$ 1,668,089.32 x 619.679CBM/3,700CM and less than two decimal places). D.

Until June 30, 2015, the Defendant paid only US$1,526,632.33 among US dollars 1,668,089.32 according to the instant transport contract and did not pay the remainder US$ 141,456.99.

E. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought to the Defendant payment of the unpaid fare of USD 141,456.99 and damages for delay from July 1, 2015, which is the day following the day when the Defendant paid the last freight, pursuant to the agreement on the payment of additional freight for the portion of the additional freight, and pursuant to the preliminary agreement on the claim for return of unjust enrichment (the amount of the claim for return of unjust enrichment is less than USD 279,372.95, which is sought by the Plaintiff) based on the claim for return of unjust enrichment, and damages for delay from the day after the duplicate of the complaint in this case is served.