A. In full view of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s provision of food materials to the Defendant from November 2015 to June 2016 may be recognized as having reached KRW 9,827,900 as of June 3, 2016, and therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the unpaid amount to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) However, the defendant has a defense that he had already paid a part of the price. According to the evidence No. 1, the defendant can be acknowledged that he had paid KRW 2,00,000 to the plaintiff on June 14, 2016, and the plaintiff also has a part of the payment. Thus, this part of the defendant's defense is justified. Furthermore, the defendant had a defect to the extent that it cannot be used in the restaurant in the food material supplied by the plaintiff, and this part of the defendant's defense was found to exist, and therefore, the defendant suffered a considerable loss, and thus the defendant did not have a duty to pay the plaintiff the price

Although it is alleged to the effect that damages should be compensated by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff, it is difficult to accept the allegation in this part, since there are no other supporting evidence.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of KRW 7,827,90 and KRW 15% per annum under the Civil Act from August 6, 2016 following the delivery of a copy of the claim of this case to the Plaintiff from August 6, 2016 to May 17, 2017, which is the date the Defendant rendered a judgment of the competent court, to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation.

2. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of recognition and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground. Accordingly, among the judgment of the first instance that partially different conclusions, the above amount of money is recognized.