1. The Defendant’s KRW 129,074,790 and its KRW 94,434,140 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from August 8, 2019 to January 23, 2020.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 18 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff company engaged in the manufacturing and selling business, etc., may recognize the fact that the plaintiff supplied the defendant, a company engaged in the manufacturing and selling business, etc. with goods equivalent to KRW 94,434,140, and KRW 34,640,650, to the defendant on September 30, 2019.

Under the above facts, the obligation to pay the price for goods in the goods contract has concurrent performance relationship with the obligation to supply the goods (Article 568(2) of the Civil Act). Under the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 129,074,790 won (=94,434,140 won) and 94,434,140 won among them (=94,650 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after August 8, 2019 to January 23, 2020 when the copy of the application for correction of the final purport of the claim of this case was delivered to the defendant from the date of the supply of the goods to the day of full payment (Article 568(2) of the Civil Act). The defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum, 34,640,650 won per annum from the day after the next day to the day of full payment, as the plaintiff seeks from October 1 to 23, 25.

On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the date of payment of goods price or the date of full payment. However, statutory interest rate under the above Act is applied from the day after the delivery of the copy of the application for correction of the complaint or claim, and therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay exceeding the above scope

2. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion was delayed on average 38 days from the scheduled delivery date of the main goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.