A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the business of distributing and selling agricultural, livestock, and fishery products, and the Defendant is a person who distributes and sells freezing fishery products.

B. On July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods with the content that the Plaintiff shall supply the Defendant with 5,362 boxes of Vietnam, owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant shall sell and pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff. However, if the price for the goods is not paid within the due date, a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of goods”).

C. Since then, on March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with Vietnam War, and on April 30, 2015, a 100 million won out of the Defendant’s unpaid goods amounting to KRW 225,818,00,00 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was written with a statement of debt repayment that the remainder shall be paid by the end of June 2015 (hereinafter “each statement of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the principal claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 225,818,00 for the unpaid goods and the damages for delay at the rate of 0.6% per month from July 1, 2015 to July 9, 2015, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, from the date of July 1, 2015, 2015, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion and counterclaim

A. At the time of the contract for the supply of the instant goods, the Plaintiff agreed to supply the Defendant with a 5.4km of the weight of 1 gambling at the time of the contract for the supply of the goods, but the Plaintiff supplied a rush of less than the weight of 5.13 km or 5.28 km per gambling, etc., which led to nonperformance of the obligation.

The defendant raises objection based on the plaintiff's default of obligation.