A. The Plaintiff is a business entity that manufactures and sells electronic parts and machinery in the name of “C” and “D,” and the Defendant is a business entity that manufactures and sells machinery and equipment in the name of “E.”

B. On July 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant, and received the goods payment from the Defendant by means of sending a written estimate to the Defendant after receiving the parts drawing and quantity from the Defendant via the Plaintiff’s e-mail, and without the Defendant’s objection, supplying the goods to the Defendant according to the price of the written estimate.

The supply monthly supply value (the original supply value) .22,50,000 on January 22, 2014; 44,739, 200 on February 44, 2014; 14,085, 500 on March 14, 2014; 18,65,065, 870 on May 9, 2014; 15,949, 670 on July 11, 2014; 136,301,90 on the aggregate of 136,301,90 on May 15, 2014

C. From January 2014 to July 2014, the Plaintiff sent a written estimate at the Defendant’s request and issued a tax invoice stating that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the goods, and then supplied the Defendant with the mechanical equipment equivalent to each supply value in each of the following table, and sent it to the Defendant by e-mail or facsimile accompanied by the specification of transactions.

On the other hand, even after January 2014, the defendant continued to engage in the transaction with the plaintiff without raising any objection to the price of the goods that the plaintiff seeks. The defendant sent to the plaintiff on April 28, 2014, with respect to the plaintiff's content certification seeking payment of KRW 81,374,70,00 (= KRW 22,550,739,200, KRW 444,739,200, KRW 14,085,50) of the total amount of the price of the goods from January 2014 to March 2014, "the details of the terms have been verified, and C's request for settlement on April 30, 201 to the plaintiff is inconsistent with C and E's transaction intention. However, it should make best possible within the latest date upon the request of the understanding that the settlement has been delayed due to the internal circumstances of E, and the remaining amount shall be paid to the plaintiff on April 13, 2014.