B. Although the price for the temporary re-supply claimed by the Plaintiff is fully recognized, the amount equivalent to the cost for the destruction is different from the amount that the Defendant thought.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the amount equivalent to the cost of the temporary destruction is 245,279,100 won (including value added tax) as shown in the following table:

40 20 140 20 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 5 20 40 40 40 5 20 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 205 205 2040 40 405 205 40 50 4040 405 20440 50 2040 405 2050 405 204 204 404 50 4050 404 205 205 404

B. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 367,119,296 (i.e., KRW 121,840,196 for the total amount of KRW 245,279,100 for the loss of KRW 121,840,196 for the goods) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 1, 2019 to the date of full payment ( March 26, 2019) as sought by the Plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.