1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 11,700,000 as well as 6% per annum from April 1, 2013 to March 18, 2015; and

1. Determination as to the claim for the payment of the uniform supplied in December 2012

A. On December 27, 2012, the fact that the Defendant, who runs the business of selling the pre-determination of the cause of the claim, agreed to receive KRW 38,400,000 (=320 won/US x 120,000) from the Plaintiff who runs the business of selling the pre-determination of the pre-sale of the uniforms, in total, KRW 38,40,000 (=320 won/US x 120,000) and to pay the price by March 2013 is not a dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 11,70,000 won (=38,400,000-26,700,000 won) remaining after deducting KRW 26,70,000,00 from the price of the previous uniforms 38,400,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from April 1, 2013 to March 18, 2015, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s argument should deduct KRW 1,920,000 (i.e., KRW 320,000) from the total price, on the ground that the Plaintiff supplied KRW 6,000 equivalent to 5% of the total number of uniforms previously concluded at the time, but did not supply it.

However, in view of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant calculated the total amount of 120,000 won per 320 won per annum at the time, as seen earlier, when considering that they ordinarily use the term “dump” the term “the goods being aground other than the value control,” which means “the goods being aground other than the value control,” the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the price of 38,400,000 won for 120,000 won, not 126,000 won, and the amount of 6,000 won for 120,000 won without compensation, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant without compensation.

The defendant's assertion of deduction of the price cannot be accepted.

2. Determination as to the claim for the payment of the previous uniforms supplied in March 2014

A. The defendant's judgment as to the cause of the claim.