1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,082,974 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from March 5, 2013 to February 21, 2016, and the following.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in textile processing business with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “D.”

원고는 2011. 4.부터 피고의 주문에 따라 피고가 공급한 원사(原絲) 또는 스스로 조달한 원사를 이용하여 생지를 제작(직조)하여 피고가 지정한 염색업체에 납품하는 거래를 해왔다.

After the above transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was interrupted, the final payment of the cost of death that the Plaintiff did not receive from the Defendant as of March 4, 2013 is KRW 6,091,394, and the processing fee is KRW 18,91,580.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-12, 2-1-4, 5-1-4, 6-12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 25,082,974 won (=the amount calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 5,00,000,000 from the amount of KRW 6,091,394, the processing fees of KRW 18,91,580, which is the remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 5,000 from the amount of KRW 18,91,580, and delay damages therefor, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 30,253,405, including the shortage in weight in the life of the Plaintiff supplied and the damages caused by defective products, which are the total amount of KRW 30,253,405, which would be offset. If the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s obligation to pay for

The amount of loss for items of loss 1 weight shortage 11,291,90 won 2 in excess of 3,170,500 won in excess of 3,170,50 won in excess of 4,471,850 won in excess of 7,332,50 won in the amount of goods kept by the Defendant due to the failure of 3,986,996 won in excess of 30,253,405 won in the amount of goods kept by the Defendant.

B. First of all, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above fact with respect to defective parts of the product, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise.