1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) corresponding to the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the manufacturing business, such as a conjection, etc. with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who engages in the manufacturing business of furniture, etc. under the trade name

B. The Plaintiff processed and supplied the furniture, etc. to the Defendant from August 2005 to July 2016. As of July 31, 2016, when the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not trade any longer, the amount of supplied goods that the Defendant settled by the Plaintiff is KRW 5,678,661.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 12, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 8 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Issues of the instant case

A. The Plaintiff asserts that if the Plaintiff presents the supply price for each individual transaction to the Defendant for a long time, the supply price was set by the Defendant with the consent of the amount. Specifically, if the Plaintiff presents the supply price to the Defendant, the Plaintiff stated the supply price on the part of the Defendant, and then the delivery price was set for each individual transaction in the column of the transaction specification, signed by the Defendant and returned to the Plaintiff, and that the supply contract was concluded.

B. On the other hand, around August 2005, when the first transaction was between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant entered into a legally binding oral agreement between both parties to set the delivery unit price by attaching the margin of KRW 2,000 per kilogram 1 kilogram 2,00 (2 won per kilogram 1g) to the Arabic price, which is the raw materials, and thus, the delivery unit price is determined solely for the individual transaction at the time. Although each individual transaction was made by presenting a statement of the transaction unit price that the Plaintiff stated the supply unit price on the Defendant’s side, the Defendant signed the “takeover” column of the transaction list.

Even if this is less than the confirmation of the details of transactions, and the delivery unit price is still determined solely by the oral agreement, so it exceeds this.