1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,400,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from April 5, 2018 to December 14, 2018, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that aims at the manufacturing business of infant supplies, etc., and the Defendant is a person who engages in the printing business with the trade name “C”.

B. On December 17, 2016, the Plaintiff determined the amount of KRW 12,260,000 for five products, including “D” and “E” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant products”) produced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) and requested the production of the goods for five products, such as “D” and “E” (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

C. Around February 2017, the Defendant supplied to the Plaintiff all of the non-party F (G company) designated by the Plaintiff the premises under the instant contract.

On March 12, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to adjust the instant contract price of KRW 9,000,000, including the goods price of KRW 1,500,000 with respect to the instant product, and paid the Defendant the said KRW 9,00,000,000 to the Defendant. The Plaintiff was handed over the same plate produced under the instant contract by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 5, 13, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, witness H's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the Defendant did not perform its duty to supply the goods of this case to the Plaintiff under the contract of this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff. (2) The Plaintiff’s nonperformance of such duty is as follows: (a) The Plaintiff’s losses incurred by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the obligation are KRW 22,00,000,000 for the instant product) the cost of producing plastic products of this case 7,800,000, out of the cost of producing plastic products of this case’s product of this case’s non-delivery cost of KRW 20%, among the license cost of this case’s product of this case’s product of this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 1, No. 3, and the witness H’s testimony and pleading, the Defendant does not correspond to plastic withdrawals produced by the Plaintiff.