1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 36,649,564 to the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 5% per annum from May 22, 2015 to July 19, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. A’s representative B entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of metal windows, etc. equivalent to KRW 33,300,000 (including value-added tax) at the C site on April 2013, and subsequently, entered into a contract for the supply of metal windows, etc. equivalent to KRW 502,150,000 (including value-added tax) to add the goods.

B. B supplied the above goods to the Defendant under the above contract, and the Defendant paid KRW 218,925,845 to B as the price for the goods.

C. Since then, on March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff received a seizure collection order regarding B’s goods payment, construction cost, down payment, and transaction payment claim against B as the Ulsan District Court 2015TT 2677, with the claim amounting to KRW 99,834,530, based on B’s claim against B, and the seizure collection order reached the Defendant on March 11, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the remainder of the goods remaining between B and the Defendant is KRW 201,674,905 (amounted to KRW 502,150,00 - Amount paid to KRW 218,925,845 - Amounting to KRW 81,549,250). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the goods within the scope of the remainder of the goods and delay damages therefrom.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The main point of the assertion is that the employment insurance premium paid by the Defendant on behalf of B is KRW 3,819,870, and the amount to be deducted from waste disposal expenses, etc. is KRW 12,590,721, and the Defendant’s direct purchase price of materials is KRW 246,574,591, and each of the above amounts should be deducted from the price of the instant goods.

B. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid the employment insurance premium or waste disposal cost equivalent to each of the above amounts, and furthermore, the amount equivalent to each of the above amounts should be naturally deducted from the instant goods price.