A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the industry pipeline processing business, etc. as its main business, and the Defendant is a company that runs the manufacture and sale of various automobile parts and industrial machinery parts as its main business.

B. The Defendant supplied all parts of the automobile to Mai Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mai”), and if the Defendant received a request from Mai for the supply of all parts of the automobile from Mai, the Defendant supplied the parts of the automobile to the Plaintiff which manufactured and processed the parts of the automobile. The processed products have been supplied to the Plaintiff.

C. From May 201 to October 201, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the processing cost for the main product processing. The sum of the processing cost is KRW 567,981,114 (excluding surtax).

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the remainder after deducting 5% of the management expenses as the management expenses from the outsourcing processing expenses that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff. In fact, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the remainder calculated by deducting 40% of the remainder, depending on the parts from May to October, 201, as the processing expenses, and did not pay the difference, so the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the difference to the Plaintiff

(The plaintiff claims the above difference as unjust enrichment, but the plaintiff claims the amount not paid out of the agreed service price, so it is judged that the plaintiff claims the payment of the unpaid service price.

When the defendant's assertion requests the plaintiff to process parts, the plaintiff and the defendant have agreed on the processing costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the defendant has paid all the processing costs determined in consultation with the plaintiff from May 201 to October 201, so no additional payment shall be made.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay processing costs (1) is first the Defendant.