1. The Defendant’s KRW 68,531,50 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from August 28, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff supplied the defendant with Leratanll and Dog products from around 2004 to May 21, 2015, and supplied 36,000 won per square meter, and 50,000 won per Doggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggs

Therefore, pursuant to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 68,531,500 won with 20% per annum from August 28, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion on October 1, 2015 is based on the amendment of the “Provisions on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings” and the interest rate under the aforementioned Act is 15%, and there is no reason for the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay exceeding the above scope of recognition).

A. The Defendant asserted that the price of goods should be calculated on the basis of the price (33,000 won per square meter: 36,000 won per square meter, 500,000 won per dog) supplied by the Plaintiff while being supplied with the leratan panel and fishing from the Plaintiff, and that the supply price (5,00 won per dog: 50,000 won per dog) was higher than that of other companies, and that the Defendant continued to pay for the goods from September 2011. Since after 2012, the Defendant should pay for the goods based on the price (3,000 won per square meter: 462,00 won per dog: 462,00 won per dog) supplied by another company. However, according to the above evidence, the Defendant did not have any evidence to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to lower the supply price of goods. Rather, even if the Plaintiff filed a claim for payment on the basis of the previous unit price, it is recognized that the Defendant continued to pay part of the price until May 2015.