The defendant's KRW 33,00,000 and about this, 6% per annum from October 11, 2018 to November 27, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement No. 1 of the judgment as to May 10, 2018, it is acknowledged that, during three months (which can be extended for 60 days) concluded a contract for the supply of goods with the content that Company B would supply the said products to the Plaintiff for KRW 221,450,400,000 per kilogramg (hereinafter “instant contract”) by receiving KRW 300,000 from the Plaintiff on May 10, 2018, and supplying the Plaintiff for KRW 2,60,000 per kilogramg (which would be possible to extend 60,000). However, while the Plaintiff failed to supply a part of the goods, it was recognized that the Plaintiff returned KRW 221,450,400 in total to the Plaintiff over September and October of the same

According to the above facts of recognition, as the corporation B violated the contract of this case, it is liable for damages incurred to the plaintiff due to the above default.

[In relation to this case, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff renounced the right to claim damages upon the rescission of the contract of this case by agreement, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff renounced the right to claim damages at the time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. As to the scope of compensation for damages, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff did not obtain profits from the sale of the products of swine and its products from the stock company B through the contract of this case, and that the Plaintiff did not obtain profits from the sale of the products of swine and its products. The following circumstances, namely, ① the wholesale price of the swine after the date of the nonperformance of the obligation was 3,200 won and, as at the time of the occurrence of the obligation, the Plaintiff was 2,600 won and was able to receive 20% or more profits, and ② the supply of the products of swine and its products was not separately determined, thereby undermining the Plaintiff to supply more profits to the Plaintiff.