2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. From around 2010 to December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff continuously supplied the Defendant with goods, such as theater, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods”).

B. On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared a trading statement (Evidence A) stating “C” with respect to the settlement of accounts arising from the transaction of the instant goods, including “249,039,876 won per previous year, KRW 105,60,000 per deposit, and KRW 143,439,876, and the balance of KRW 143,439,876, and the Defendant confirmed the details of the said trading statement, and entered “C” with his trade name in the said trading statement.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 143,439,876 for unpaid goods and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 15, 2016 to the date of full payment, as claimed by the Plaintiff, after the date of final supply of the instant goods.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant decided to hold a subsequent consultation with the Plaintiff on the unit price of the instant goods, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant goods should be calculated accordingly, since it is a commercial practice to discount 10% from the transaction price upon the termination of the continuous transaction.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that there was a transaction of goods worth approximately KRW 2.6 billion between the Defendant and the Defendant, and according to the above assertion, the Plaintiff filed a tax return only on the part of the above transaction amount, and omitted tax on the remaining portion of the transaction amount.

As such, the plaintiff considered the profit equivalent to the above omitted tax amount.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the amount of profit should be deducted from the price of goods to be paid to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff is also entitled.