1. The Defendant’s KRW 98,393,352 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from June 22, 2018 to December 19, 2018, and the following.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a company with the purpose of electricity and electronic parts processing, and the defendant is a gold-type manufacturing business, electronic parts manufacturing business, etc.

From 2014 to 2017, the Plaintiff was entrusted with the manufacture of cell phone parts from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) and supplied them to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff’s annual sales amounting to KRW 4,255,393,432 in 2014, KRW 3,774,00, KRW 678 in 2015, KRW 2,370, KRW 160,01 in 2016, KRW 1,961, KRW 566, and KRW 696 in accordance with the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, and the Defendant’s annual sales amount to KRW 3,74,00 in 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The defendant's assertion that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful against the agreement to institute a lawsuit of this case, because the lawsuit of this case is against the agreement to institute a lawsuit of this case. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion of Gap's 1 through 11 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) is unlawful.

The Appellate Agreement, one of the requirements for passive litigation, generates the effect of a serious litigation law, such as the waiver of the right to claim a trial guaranteed under the Constitution, so it is permissible when the parties to the agreement are limited to a specific legal relationship as it is within the scope of the right to be disposed of, and is valid when the agreement is reached (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da63988, Mar. 26, 1999). In a case where there is a different opinion on the existence or scope of the validity, it shall be determined after a reasonable interpretation of the parties’ intention.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da80449 Decided November 28, 2013). According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff prepared a subcontract consideration settlement agreement with the Defendant several times, and confirmed that there was no objection with the Defendant regarding the amount of deduction and the amount of termination arising from both trade, such as deduction, etc., and the following conclusion details are future.