1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,154,360 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from June 23, 2011 to December 4, 2014, and the following.

1. In full view of the facts without any dispute over the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff operated a fiber retail and manufacturer with the trade name of "C", and the defendant operated a manufacturer, such as clothing processing, with the trade name of "D", the plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the defendant for the supply of clothing raw materials, and delivered the defendant a sum of KRW 37,141,720 in total from November 29, 201 to June 22, 2011. The defendant paid KRW 8,987,360 in total to the defendant by May 2, 2011.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 28,154,360 won (37,141,720 won - 8,987,360 won) and 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 23, 2011 to December 4, 2014, which is the date following the final original delivery date of the defendant's obligation to pay to the plaintiff, to dispute over the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

(1) The Plaintiff filed a claim for late payment from May 3, 201 after the date of final payment of the goods from the Defendant. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff supplied the original unit to the Defendant by June 22, 2011, and thus, the Defendant’s delayed payment of the goods should be borne thereafter. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Defendant’s claim on June 22, 201 is without merit. Accordingly, the Defendant attempted to process the original unit supplied by the Plaintiff on June 13, 201, and deliver it to the Customer by processing the original unit of KRW 760DB and 760RB, which were supplied by the Plaintiff on June 13, 2011. The Defendant failed to deliver the clothes due to the original unit’s defect to the Customer and caused damage to the customer, which was caused by the transaction with other transaction partners, and the Defendant’s original unit due to the defect.