1. The Defendant’s KRW 95,586,697 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from May 1, 2014 to July 19, 2016, and the next day.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a continuous supply contract with the defendant on the basis of the materials of ebane and suspended the transaction on April 17, 2014. The amount of the goods unpaid at the time of the discontinuance of the transaction was 142,086,697. The plaintiff received a total of KRW 46,50,000 from the defendant, and the plaintiff received a total of KRW 46,50,000 from the defendant on September 30, 2015. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of the unpaid goods 95,586,697 won and damages for delay calculated from May 1, 2014 to July 16, 2016.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that since April 2012, the product price increase, the Defendant requested several times to reduce the price increase to the team leader, who is the responsible manager of the Plaintiff. At the time, D, the representative director of the Plaintiff, agreed to reduce the price of the goods up to KRW 20 million. However, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the reduction of the price based on each of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 9-1 through 4.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff promised to adjust the price to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant agreed to discount 3% of the price of goods deposited in cash from March 2012 to April 2014, and to discount 3% of the price of goods at the time of cash payment. However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not discount the price of goods, KRW 6,00,000 shall be the price of goods.