1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling and leasing real estate and selling and leasing machinery, and the Defendant is engaged in the business of supplying air-conditioning and heating machinery.

B. From November 12, 2014 to June 29, 2016, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with goods, such as heating and cooling machinery, and the sum of the goods that the Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant is KRW 154,343,086.

C. The Defendant filed an application with the Incheon District Court for a payment order seeking the payment of the price of the pertinent goods as the Busan District Court Branch 2016 tea656, and the said court ordered the Defendant to pay the payment order to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 154,343,086 and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the service of the original payment order to the day of full payment by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs.”

On October 11, 2016, the above payment order was served on the Plaintiff and became final and conclusive on October 26 of the same month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant continued to engage in the transaction of supplying goods from November 12, 2014 to June 29, 2016. At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant applied a discount rate of 30% of the price of goods at the time, and the Defendant claims for the payment of the price of goods at the time. The Defendant claims for the payment of the price of the goods at the request of the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant unilaterally claims the price of the goods at a discount rate of less than the discount rate of 34% (30%) which is set unilaterally by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the ground of the payment delay of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s price of the goods against the Plaintiff is unfairly excessive.

If calculation is made by transaction practices between the plaintiff and the defendant, only 138,908,776 won and damages for delay are paid to the plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution on the scope of exceeding the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant's goods price for the plaintiff is determined.