A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff supplied steel to the Defendant who runs a construction business with the trade name “C” from around July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2017. As such, the Plaintiff’s remainder of the price of the goods for which the Plaintiff supplied steel to the Defendant, and which the Plaintiff did not receive, can be recognized as constituting a cause for 33,857,129 as of July 1, 2017.

According to these facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 33,857,129 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged that he paid the price of the goods to the Plaintiff even after July 1, 2017, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 10,564,016 as the price of the goods to the Plaintiff between June 28, 2018 and July 10, 2019.

According to these facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s price for the goods against the Defendant remains KRW 23,293,113 as of July 10, 2019 (= KRW 33,857,129-10,564,016).

I would like to say.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,293,113 of the balance of the above goods price and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 12% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from June 5, 2019 to August 29, 2019, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute over the scope of its duty of performance, as requested by the Plaintiff, from June 5, 2019 on the record that is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.