1. The defendant shall calculate the amount of KRW 3,603,557 to the plaintiff at the rate of 15% per annum from February 8, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff supplied meat to the Defendant from August 2016 to October 2016, and acquired a total of KRW 8,674,289 for the land price of KRW 8,67,289; the fact that part of the claim for the land price of KRW 3,603,557 for the land price of KRW 3,603,557 [=3 million for the land price of KRW 8,674,289 – for the land price of which the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff - KRW 253,440 for the goods price of KRW 253,440 for the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff - The principal amount of KRW 1,817,292 for the land price of KRW 1,469,510 for the principal amount of KRW 347,782 for the land price of KRW 5 and 6 are not in dispute between the parties or recognized by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in each evidence.

Therefore, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining remaining land price of KRW 3,603,557 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 8, 2018 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion: at the time of receiving the above meat from the plaintiff, he also accepted the said meat at the same time, and agreed that the plaintiff would repair the freezing because the said meat was in poor condition and resist the plaintiff. However, since the plaintiff failed to repair it, most of the above meat which the plaintiff stored in the freezing was destroyed and discarded, and the defendant suffered property damage equivalent to 3.2 million won, and therefore, the above amount should be deducted from the remaining meat price as stated in paragraph (1).

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above facts of the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.