A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacture and sale of original yarn with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who manufactures and sells the original body and other textile materials with the trade name of “D.”

B. Around May 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of textile products, including yarns, and supplied various originals to the Defendant from the date of that contract to March 31, 2016, and the Defendant settled the price by frequently remitting it to the Plaintiff.

C. As of December 31, 2012, the Defendant’s balance of the Defendant’s raw price and fixed price (hereinafter “goods price”) is KRW 187,842,72. From January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016, the amount unpaid for the Defendant’s goods additionally accrued until the Plaintiff’s last textile product is KRW 46,052,077. The Defendant’s unpaid goods price is KRW 23,894,79 ( KRW 187,842,722, 46,052,077).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 233,894,799 of the unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 8, 2016 to May 26, 2017, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order (this Court Decision 2016 tea194), and the date of the instant decision, from June 8, 2016 to May 26, 2017, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

[Plaintiff’s assertion that the unpaid balance of the Defendant’s goods exceeds the above amount of KRW 238,038,90. However, it is difficult to believe that it is not inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2, a document unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff, which is evidence consistent with the above assertion, such as that it is inconsistent with the last attempted amount as stated in No. 5, which is the director of other transaction partners, submitted by the Plaintiff.