1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. To indicate the date of closing of argument in the judgment of the first instance.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1 to 6.

The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling Vpphers, etc. with the trade name of "B", and the defendant is the manufacturer and seller of pumps, etc.

B. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods, such as Vpphers, from around 2007 to February 2014.

C. From February 12, 2013 to January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 72,791,740 from the Defendant as the price for goods.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Plaintiff 1) The balance of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was KRW 20,643,49, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was the sum of KRW 99,436,208 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant from February 2, 2013 to February 28, 2014;

hereinafter the same shall apply.

(2) The Defendant was obligated to additionally supply the goods equivalent thereto, and received KRW 72,791,740 in total from the Defendant from February 12, 2013 to January 29, 2014 as the price for the goods. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the price for the goods (=20,643,49 KRW 9,436,208 KRW 99,436,208 KRW 72,791,740) and the delay damages therefrom. Meanwhile, on January 29, 2014, the Defendant issued a promissory note with the payment date as of April 30, 2014 to the Plaintiff for the partial repayment of the obligation to pay the price for the goods. Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was interrupted on April 30, 2014.

B. Of the goods claimed by Defendant 1 to be supplied to the Defendant, the supply amount reaches KRW 88,692,969 in total. This is more than twice compared to the average annual supply amount up to the previous year, which is KRW 46,786,572, which is the average annual supply amount up to the previous year. However, the Defendant’s increase in sales during the same period is not made at all, and the Plaintiff prepares a transaction statement with different unit prices for the same goods without any special reason.