1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 9,198,00 as well as 12% per annum from March 26, 2019 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator engaged in gold-type manufacturing business, etc. with the trade name “D” in Bupyeong-si, Incheon, and the Defendant is a business operator engaged in gold-type manufacturing business with the trade name “F” in Nam-gu, Incheon.

B. From December 2017 to July 2018, the Plaintiff supplied a tax invoice to the Defendant by processing a set of gold in several times, and issued the tax invoice. As of July 2018, the price of the goods or the processing cost that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 9,198,00.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 8 (including each number in case of additional number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the price of goods or processing cost of 9,1980,000 won, and damages for delay thereof, unless there are special circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum from March 26, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff, as a result of the repayment period for KRW 9,1980,000 to the plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, in April 2018, the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with the processing of 5 punishment for the gold-type croccos related to the medical instruments. However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the unpaid amount as required by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was found to have processed and supplied gold-type croccos in an aesthetic manner, thereby causing enormous damages to the Defendant’s reprocessing and supplying them to the original office.

In full view of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8, the plaintiff is deemed to have completed the process required for the work area in charge of the plaintiff according to the design drawings presented by the defendant and delivered the gold cocoin to the defendant.

The defendant has been under contract.