A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in food manufacturing business, wholesale and retail business in the 42th New-ro, Seocho-si, Gwangju Metropolitan City. The Defendant is a juristic person engaged in agriculture, livestock farming, water, distribution and processing of forest products on the 47 Hanam-ro, Seonam-ro, 47, 1st floor (Seoul-do).

B. On January 22, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant supplied the Defendant with food and raw materials, etc. to the Defendant, and concluded a total sales contract with the Defendant processed and sold them to the Agricultural Cooperatives IFE (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. The Plaintiff’s price for goods not supplied to the Defendant by May 22, 2015 is KRW 92,559,180.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 92,559,180 payable to the Plaintiff, as requested by the Plaintiff, delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 24, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day of delivery of the copy of the claim and the application for change of reason of the claim of this case, to the day of full payment.

On the other hand, the defendant, from January 2015, decided to claim the price for the goods after deducting 5% of the total supply price from the total supply price, and argued to the effect that the defendant should deduct the amount of one million won returned by the defendant.

In light of the purport of the whole pleadings, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff shall pay 5% of the total supply price to the Defendant from January 2015 on condition that the Defendant settled the goods normally on the settlement date as sales incentive. As long as the Defendant did not pay the goods on the settlement date to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s assertion premised on this premise is without merit, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant returned the goods equivalent to one million won to the Plaintiff. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion