2. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff agreed with the defendant at a discount rate of 3% of the price of the goods at the time of commencing the transaction. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay only the price of the goods discounted pursuant to the above discount agreement.

However, the Plaintiff, from July 2013, demanded the payment of the price for the goods in KRW 40,319,400 when calculating the price for the goods without applying the said discount agreement. From July 2013, when calculating the price for the goods that the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff by applying the said discount agreement, it is only KRW 614,307.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the facts without dispute, and the purport of the entire argument in the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff engaged in manufacturing food and retail business: (a) entered into an agreement with the Defendant, who is engaged in food business on January 2012; and (b) with the Plaintiff at the time of supplying food materials, etc. to the Defendant to discount 3% of the price of the goods such as food materials, etc. supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (c) in applying the instant discount agreement to the transaction of goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant between January 5, 2012 and March 4, 2016, the price of the goods remaining after the Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff as of March 4, 2016, can be acknowledged as constituting 614,307.

According to the above facts, the defendant's objection against the plaintiff's remaining price of KRW 614,307 and its final transaction date from March 5, 2016, which is the day following the above final transaction date, about the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation, shall be limited to 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 2, 2017, which is the date of this decision, and 6% from the following day to the day of full payment.