1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 82,980,285 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 7, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff supplied steel products equivalent to the total amount of KRW 304,325,376 to the defendant from September 27, 2016 to April 30, 2017, and the fact that the outstanding amount as of May 23, 2014 was 91,980,285 (Evidence No. 4) (Evidence No. 4), and the plaintiff was paid nine million won from the defendant, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining goods price of KRW 82,980,285 and delay damages therefrom to the plaintiff.

2. As to this, the Defendant: (a) had the power to construct the cut steel goods after being supplied with the cut steel goods; (b) had the Plaintiff offered that he would supply the steel goods to the Defendant so that he would enable him to import the steel goods every month; (c) 14 million won in the cost of manufacturing and installing steel; (d) KRW 4.3 million in the cost of installing steel; (c) KRW 7.5 million in the cost of storing steel goods; (d) KRW 7.5 million in the cost of manufacturing steel goods; and (d) KRW 3 million in the cost of manufacturing steel goods; and (e) KRW 74.8 million in the cost of manufacturing steel goods; and (e) KRW 74.8 million in the cost of manufacturing steel goods; and (e) even if the Plaintiff failed to perform his promise, thereby causing damage equivalent to the above amount, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case should be in violation of the good faith principle or deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim amount.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant received a proposal from the plaintiff and paid facility investment expenses, etc. as alleged by the plaintiff, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts to the effect that since the price of the instant goods is a false transaction for the purpose of tax deduction, the amount equivalent to the above amount should be deducted. However, in the instant case where the Plaintiff claims for the payment of the goods based on a written confirmation (Evidence A4) prepared on May 23, 2014, which was after the completion of the transaction, the Defendant’s statement in the evidence No. 8 alone is the same.