1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 10,807,240 as well as the full payment from June 19, 2013.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation operating the business of manufacturing food additives and food additives, entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant, which is a corporation operating franchise service business, etc. Accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied food materials, such as salt, to the Defendant from May 2009 to May 2013. However, the fact that there was a total amount of KRW 10,807,240 due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the goods from around 2011 that there was no dispute between the parties, or that there was a total of KRW 10,807,240 due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the goods, can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the price of goods payable and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's defense is defense that the value of the goods returned to the plaintiff among the goods claimed by the plaintiff should be deducted. However, there is no evidence as to the return of part of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant and the quantity and value of the goods returned as such. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,807,240 for the unpaid goods and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 19, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is obvious following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant unilaterally suspended the supply of food materials, such as cattle, from May 4, 2013 without justifiable grounds, and accordingly, the Defendant became unable to supply the goods to the Defendant’s chain store operators smoothly, thereby causing enormous business losses. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation as above is the Defendant.