1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, a merchant, entered into a contract for the supply of furniture around June 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with furnitures equivalent to USD 22,560 on June 26, 2013; USD 37,192 on July 24, 2013; USD 26,078 on October 2, 2013; USD 26,984 on November 9, 2013; USD 23,222 on June 23, 2014. There is no dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. In addition to the supply of furnitures to the Defendant on five occasions as described in paragraph (1), the Plaintiff supplied 2,028 US dollars 25,992 on May 23, 2015 (six minutes). The total supply amount ($ 22,560 US$ 26,078 USD 26,984 USD 23,222 US$ 25,992).

However, since the Plaintiff received USD 120,323 in total from the Defendant, it would be US$ 41,705 if it is deducted from the supply price.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has a claim for the supply price of KRW 47,543,700 to the Defendant ($ 41,705 x 1,140 x the Plaintiff’s alleged exchange rate of KRW 1,140). Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 45,00,000, which is a part of the claim, and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant attempted not to deliver the said furnitures (six minutes) sent by the Plaintiff on May 23, 2015 on the ground that there was a defect in the household category that the Plaintiff supplied five times in the past. However, there was an agreement among the Defendant to reduce the price for the supply of the said furnitures (six minutes) delivered by the Plaintiff on May 23, 2015.

Therefore, the total supply amount is USD 142,616 ($ 22,560) ($ 27,192 US$ 26,988 US$ 26,984 US$ 23,222 US$ 6,580).

However, the Defendant paid USD 123,323 to the Plaintiff as the supply price under the instant contract.

In addition, the defendant's living room around 201 is located in the plaintiff.