1. The Defendant’s KRW 79,33,092 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 1, 2016 to October 5, 2016, and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in logistics, transportation, steel sales, etc., and the Defendant is a company engaged in the manufacturing of steel products, steel products, and steel structures. From around 2013, the Defendant supplied steel products from the Plaintiff and settled steel prices on a monthly basis.

B. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with steel materials of KRW 317,268,160 all from July 1, 2017 to the 31st day of the same month, and issued a detailed statement of electronic transaction (Evidence 1) to that effect, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 350,100,850 to the Defendant on account of the need for the Plaintiff’s accounting.

C. Upon the Defendant’s protesting against this, the Plaintiff agreed to settle the increased portion from the steel materials supplied after August to the extent of the increased portion through the reduction of the price difference. In fact, the Plaintiff offered a price reduction of KRW 10,000 to the Defendant during the settlement of accounts thereafter.

However, since October 2014, the Plaintiff failed to perform the remaining difference agreement with the Defendant on the grounds that the steel products transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant were not properly conducted on the grounds that it was poor in customers, etc.

E. The Defendant’s price for steel products that was not paid to the Plaintiff by November 30, 2014 is KRW 112,530,352 on the account book.

(2) On July 2014, the price for the goods is 350,100,850 (which is based on a premise that the price for the goods is 350,100,850). [The ground for recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the fact of recognition as above, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have agreed to pay the price of steel products on July 2014 when the Plaintiff fulfilled the promise to pay the difference with respect to the price of steel products, as much as the increased amount, to the extent that the Defendant would have agreed to pay the price of goods. Thus, even if the agreement to pay the difference is reached, it is subject to