1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 203,306,045 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from November 6, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with 135,013,010 won in total (a total amount of KRW 135,013,010).

The Defendant supplied dynamic chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “dynamic chemical”) with dynamics supplied by the Plaintiff.

From October 29, 2013 to December 2, 2013, the Defendant endorsed three copies of electronic bills (a total of KRW 135,013,010,010) issued by the East Navy to the Plaintiff.

B. From December 28, 2013 to December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff additionally supplied the Defendant with 227,410 g (including value-added tax) of fishery thorium 227,410 g (including value-added tax).

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1 million on March 31, 2014, KRW 1 million on April 30, 2014, KRW 1 million on April 30, 2014, and KRW 3 million on June 2, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 6, 2014 (the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, the date when the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with Fishery Centium to the Defendant, and the rate of 20% per annum (the interest rate prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings) to the day of full payment, barring any special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that, in the case of the rehabilitation of the East Sea Chemical (Seoul Central District Court 2014 Ma16), the Plaintiff reported KRW 203,306,045 as a rehabilitation claim and suffered disadvantage to the Defendant, and that, as such, the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because it exercised the above claim for the price of goods directly for the East Sea Chemical, the claim for the price of goods against the Defendant was extinguished.

However, in full view of the evidence No. 6, No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods in the rehabilitation case against the East Navy is 203,306.