1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the extra-fishery trading to supply fishery products to the Defendant on credit; the trading period from July 16, 2014 to July 30, 2015 (in the absence of any other declaration of intention, one year shall be automatically extended on the same condition) and the price for the goods from July 1 to the end of the following month to the 15th day of the following month (in the event of delay in payment, the additional payment shall be 14.5% per annum).

(hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”). Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligations under the said contract.

B. The Plaintiff supplied fishery products to the Defendant from the above agreement date to February 3, 2016, and the Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff by March 15, 2016 is KRW 15,344,425.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-32 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found above, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 15,344,425, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 14.5% per annum as stipulated in the instant goods supply contract from March 16, 2016 to July 11, 2016, which is the service day of the original copy of the instant payment order, from March 16, 2016, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

[Defendant asserts that each aviation ledger and transaction statement among the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff are not in conformity with each other, and thus, it is not reliable. However, according to the evidence No. 31 and No. 32, the above quantity difference is considered to have occurred by the composite delivery method, so the above argument by the Defendant is not accepted). 3. Defendant's assertion as to the Defendant's assertion. Defendant's employee C did not receive the return of the gift set, and it is argued that the gift set did not apply to the period of application of the discount rate, and it was calculated excessively in excess of the unpaid amount of the unpaid amount of the goods. However, this is recognized.