2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From around 2011, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the pelpel paper products to manufacture and sell paper cups, paper stuffs, etc.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant newly agreed on the unit price of the pelpel paper products supplied by the Plaintiff through a written estimate dated April 25, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant stated the said written estimate as “a separate consultation when unit price is increased.”

C. As the price of the aggregate sheet increases due to the imbalance of supply and demand of the local aggregate sheet, etc., the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of August 12, 2016 that “The supply price of the aggregate sheet shall be increased by 15-30% from August 1, 2016 without the grace period.” The more accurate scope of increase is to be determined as soon as possible by item.”

On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a statement of termination for eight months, applying the increased unit price to some items.

E. The Defendant’s assertion against the Plaintiff’s unilateral unit price, and around October 2016, the Plaintiff discontinued the supply of the pelpel paper products to the Defendant.

F. Around December 2016, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the full amount of the price for goods calculated by applying the existing unit price to the quantity of the pre-printed paper products supplied by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 5, 10 to 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion repeatedly notified the increase of the unit price and the Defendant continued to supply the pelpel paper products without any specific response, and there was an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the increase of the unit price of the pel paper products supplied by the Plaintiff.

Even if there is no such implied agreement, the Defendant rejected a unit price consultation, thereby unfairly destroying a continuous transaction contract in violation of the obligation to enter into an individual contract in a continuous transactional relationship.

Therefore, the defendant is implicitly agreed to the plaintiff.