1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 133,167,669 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 30, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Under the underlying facts, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-4, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 7, and evidence 9-1 to 10.

On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the terms of contract amount of KRW 671,00,625, and on October 31, 2016, the payment period of the quality guarantee form “the required group requested for the required military type of inspection is to conduct its own inspection, and is in the form of quality guarantee if deemed appropriate for the required group”, “the required group”, “the quality guarantee institution”, “the required group”, and “the compensation for delay,” and “the compensation for delay.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “original contract of this case”). B.

On October 7, 2016, the payment period of the above contract was December 12, 2016, the Plaintiff changed the quality guarantee form into “Agency for Defense Technology and Quality Assurance,” and changed the quality guarantee form into “Agency for Defense Technology and Quality Assurance,” and the quality guarantee form into “Agency for Defense Technology and Quality Assurance,” with respect to products supplied by the Defense Technology and Quality Assurance, which are the quality guarantee agency, into quality assurance activities, such as evaluation of the quality management system, process verification, product verification, product verification inspection, shape management activities, etc.

(other than this, the content of this case is the same as the original contract of this case. (hereinafter “instant amendment”).

The Plaintiff changed technology more than one to three times (referring to the modification of drawings) on the ground of error in the drawings on the Maalking, etc. received from the Defendant. The Plaintiff supplied all of the Maalking, etc. to the Defendant after the lapse of 179 days from the due date as indicated below.

[Y] The period required for the alteration of technology (132 days) 86 days (1j) 22 days (2j) 1.6.1.20 (3j) 1.22 days (31 days) for the period required for the alteration of technology (1.6.1 of 31 days) 1.6.1.20 (1j) 1.4.20 (1j) on April 24, 2005) on May 5, 24, 2005 (2j) 5.4.24 (2j) for the period required for the alteration of technology (31 days) 1.6.1.20 (1j) on May 24, 17-4.24 (2j) on May 5, 2005.