A. On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to supply the Defendant with a 100,00 ambling cosmetics, and the Defendant paid 40,000,000 won as down payment, and upon completion of the supply, pay the remainder KRW 150,000,000 to the Defendant within 24 hours.

B. The Defendant paid 40 million won to the Plaintiff on the same day, and the Plaintiff supplied 100 million won to the Defendant by May 7, 2015, and the Defendant did not pay the remainder of 150 million won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 150 million, which has not yet been paid to the plaintiff, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from November 10, 2015 to June 9, 2016, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff.

I would like to say.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the plaintiff cannot pay the amount of cosmetics to the plaintiff because he did not deliver the cosmetics to the defendant by the agreed date. Accordingly, according to each statement in the evidence in Eul and Eul, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff agreed to deliver 10,000 ambling Coups until March 10, 2015, 15, 15,000 each to the defendant until March 20, 2015. However, although the plaintiff supplied 10,000 ambling cosmetics to the defendant, it is recognized as above that the defendant did not pay the amount in full. Thus, it should be viewed that the contract for supply of cosmetics 10,000 that the defendant did not pay 10,000 amblings to the defendant and thus, it becomes invalid or becomes invalid. Thus, the plaintiff's non-performance is premised on the plaintiff's duty to supply.