1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,528,250 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from June 3, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and on October 1, 2015.

The Plaintiff is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business, such as bags, kitchen supplies, and miscellaneous articles, with the trade name of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and the Defendant is a person engaged in sales and purchase business at a F cafeteria located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, and the Plaintiff was 27,528,250 won of outstanding amount that the Plaintiff failed to supply to the Defendant during the period from October 24, 201 to August 15, 2012, and the Defendant paid KRW 25,528,250 to the Plaintiff on September 4, 2013 and paid the outstanding amount of KRW 25,528,250 to the Plaintiff on September 4, 2013. The fact that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the remainder of the outstanding amount is 25,528,250 won by taking into account the overall purport of arguments

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 25,528,250 for the unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 3, 2015 to September 30, 2015, following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 1, 2015 to the date of full payment.

The interest rate after October 1, 2015 applied 15% per annum in accordance with the amended Act on September 25, 2015 in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

The defendant asserts that the parties to a transaction are G not the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim due to a lot of damage caused by the supply of defective goods. However, according to the above evidence, the defendant seems to have transacted with D operated by the plaintiff. ② The amount receivable against the defendant asserted by the plaintiff is reflected in all of the contents returned by the defendant, and the defendant prepared a written confirmation of attempted balance on August 25, 2014 and recognized the fact that the amount receivable against D was 25,528,250 (Evidence A) and the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable (Evidence A 2).

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the above scope of recognition.