1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 815,003,026 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 6% per annum from March 15, 2016 to December 15, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaging in steel wholesale retail business, and the Defendant is a company engaged in steel and steel product processing, manufacturing, etc.

B. During the period from around 2012 to 2015, the Plaintiff refers to a product made by Chinese export company in the form of crypt by turning the high temperature and pressure above 1,500 degrees at the steel temperature. The Plaintiff is a product made in the form of crypt, while holding the high temperature and pressure above 1,500 degrees at the steel temperature.

After having received it, the defendant continued to be supplied with it.

C. Meanwhile, on February 21, 2011, the Defendant filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Daejeon District Court 201 Gohap6, and the same year from the said court.

3. The decision was rendered on the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure on 21. The C, the representative director of the defendant, was appointed as the administrator.

On December 11, 2015, the Daejeon District Court approved the amendment draft rehabilitation plan to the effect that D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) will carry out rehabilitation procedures by acquiring and taking over the defendant (M&A), and decided to terminate the rehabilitation procedure on February 18, 2016 when D completely pays the balance of the acquisition price of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 13 evidence (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, 2 and 5 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. If the intent of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to offset the amount of credit account receivable and the amount of credit purchase amount against the Defendant by an equal amount as of December 31, 2015, only the amount of credit account receivable of the Plaintiff’s 815,003,026 against the Defendant remains.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above price of goods 815,003,026 won and damages for delay.

B. The summary of the defendant's assertion was well aware of the market price of the heat cocoin in this case, and it could be directly imported from China's export company at a low price. However, the plaintiff was the defendant's previous representative director.