1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,600,500 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from March 7, 2017 to February 23, 2018.

1. The basic facts are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff engaged in the wholesale and retail business of medical devices and the repair business of medical devices; (b) the Defendant engaged in the wholesale and retail business of medical devices; (c) on August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff installed a self-official image photographing device (name of goods: GESTA 1.5T; hereinafter “the instant medical device”) with the Defendant; (d) the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 160 million with the service cost; (c) the amount of KRW 160,000,000,000 to be paid to the Plaintiff within 45 days after determining the suitability of equipment (hereinafter “the instant contract”); (d) the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on September 2, 2016 to pay KRW 16,40,000,000 to the Plaintiff within 45 days after determining the suitability of equipment; and (e) it is recognized that the Plaintiff installed the instant medical device as designated by the Defendant, as a whole, within the scope of No. 2 14, for submission.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 110 million out of the above KRW 160 million.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the service cost under the instant contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the service cost of KRW 50 million unpaid under the instant contract (=160 million - KRW 110 million).

B. The parties’ assertion 1) asserts that the Defendant should pay KRW 50,600,500 to the Plaintiff additional service costs, since the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, replaced the consumed goods of the instant medical device and added health barium. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the additional service cost due to the lack of the above request. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the additional service cost. 3) In full view of the overall purport of the written statements and arguments in the evidence No. 5-1, No. 5-2, and No. 6-1, No. 6-3, the Plaintiff replaced the consumed goods of the instant medical device.