1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 14,334,710 as well as to the plaintiff on May 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who runs the wholesale and retail business in the name of “C”, and the Defendant is a business operator who runs the business of manufacturing new products, etc. with the trade name of “D.”

B. From April 2001, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with various malicious parts necessary for the production of new products. There are many times when the Defendant accounts for the payment of goods. Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the payment of the goods, which was the date of issuance on August 10, 201, and the date of payment on November 20 and December 7, 2017, respectively, made a promissory note with a face value of KRW 1 million each, which is stated as the date of payment on November 20 and December 7, 201.

C. On September 27, 2016, the transaction ledger in which the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant stated that the amount of the goods the Defendant did not pay is KRW 14,334,710.

【Ground for recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has the right to claim for the purchase of goods amounting to KRW 16,34,710 against the Defendant. However, according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from May 12, 2018, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to September 13, 2018, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist as to the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion has merit within the scope of recognition, and the remainder of the claim is without merit.

B. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion (1) was made by the Defendant on a false basis, and there was no transaction on credit with the Plaintiff when making a transaction with the Plaintiff, and the goods price obligations were fully repaid.

However, promissory notes with a total face value of 2 million won issued by the defendant are issued by the defendant.