1. The Defendant: KRW 50,77,510 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from August 21, 2016 to November 23, 2017; and

1. The Plaintiff’s recognition from March 18, 2016 to the same year.

8. During the 18.18., the defendant supplied steel bars equivalent to KRW 553,230,046 to the defendant and received the payment of KRW 49,99,536 as the price.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 3 through 22 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant stated that KRW 50,777,510,00,000,000 (= KRW 553,230,046 - KRW 499,99,536), which is the amount the Plaintiff seeks, is the final claim amount, out of the amount of unpaid goods (i.e., KRW 553,230,046 - KRW 49,99,536).

On August 21, 2016, the day following the settlement date, the Plaintiff claimed interest from August 20, 2016, which is the settlement date, but it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff is liable for delay from the day following the settlement date.

From November 23, 2017, the date of this decision, which is deemed reasonable to dispute the scope of the obligation of this case, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The defendant's assertion that although the defendant requested the plaintiff to supply a relatively low unit price for domestic steel or sandy steel produced in Korea, since the plaintiff supplied substitute for the low unit price for domestic steel produced in Korea, it is reasonable that the difference between the unit price for domestic steel supply and the unit price for domestic steel supply is borne by the plaintiff himself/herself. The defendant asserts that the balance that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff is only KRW 6,355,814.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above facts by only the statement No. 1 and the witness B’s testimony. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings in each video of No. 23 through No. 27. The Plaintiff ordered the Defendant.