1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 415,09,200 and KRW 126,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall start on December 22, 2015, and the remainder on December 289,009.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a professor of the Mine University, is a person who develops and sells cosmetics, and the Defendant is engaged in trade business.

B. On December 22, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) determined KRW 126,00,000 to the Defendant as the due date for payment on January 7, 2016; and (b) lent the amount at KRW 15% per annum.

C. The Defendant proposed to the Plaintiff that “if the Plaintiff provides the cosmetics produced by the Plaintiff, it would later pay the price for the manufactured cosmetics after exporting them to China.” On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with 29 kinds of cosmetics, including C, equivalent to KRW 289,009,200, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 415,009,200 won with a total of KRW 126,00,000 and KRW 289,00 with a loan of KRW 289,09,200 and the loan of KRW 126,00,000 with a interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 22, 2015 to the date of full payment, and with respect to KRW 289,09,09,200 with a loan of KRW 126,00 with a interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 15, 2016 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff sought payment of 5% delay damages from the supply date of the goods price to the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case. However, the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff himself paid the goods price later. Thus, the defendant's goods price obligation is a debt with no fixed deadline, and the plaintiff's delivery of the original copy of the payment order of this case for which the plaintiff seeks payment was made was made due to delay of the defendant. Thus, the part of the claim for delay damages from the delivery date of the original copy of

B. The main point of the Defendant’s argument on the claim for the payment of goods 1 is that the Plaintiff prepared in advance at the time of supply of cosmetics.