1. The defendant shall pay 47,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from April 10, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In February 2014, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 47,000,000 equivalent to the face value per unit (B) per unit (B) within “as soon as possible”

(A) On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay KRW 47,000,000 to the Defendant by February 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 47,00,000 of the instant agreement and delay damages of KRW 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 10, 2014, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint, to the day of the delivery of the copy of the complaint (the date of prompt payment); and in light of the fact that a considerable period has elapsed after the Plaintiff notified the performance of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the instant agreement within the due date after the delivery of the copy of the complaint.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First, the defendant alleged that the agreement of this case was concluded in the status of the defendant's office ability, and thus null and void, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above assertion only with some entries in Eul evidence 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is

B. Next, the defendant asserts that the contract amount of this case was paid under the condition that the plaintiff received livestock products for two years from the plaintiff, and that the contract of this case was invalidated as the plaintiff discontinued the supply of livestock products to the defendant.

However, there is no mentioning of the above conditions in Gap evidence No. 1 stated in the instant agreement, and there is not any mentioning of the above conditions, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the above assertion only with the descriptions of No. 1 and No. 2.