1. The Defendant’s KRW 34,585,815 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from June 20, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a stock company that manufactures and sells non-ferrous metals, and the defendant is an individual entrepreneur that manufactures semiconductors and automated equipment parts in the trade name of "B", and the plaintiff supplies the defendant, up to March 2005, with non-ferrous metals, etc. equivalent to KRW 62,525,705, and the defendant supplies the defendant, up to December 10, 148,666, and March 7, 2015, with the amount of KRW 34,585,815 (=62,525,705 won -10,148,666 -17,791,224 won paid from the defendant, respectively, and the defendant is liable to pay the price for delay and delay damages to the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the supply of the above goods, the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement on the unit price of the parts to be supplied, and subsequently agreed to settle the price of the goods based on the unit price of the same kind of company. According to such settlement agreement, the Defendant’s payment of the goods to be paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 28,076,737. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking payment of the goods in excess of this agreement cannot be accepted

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, a written agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to settle the price of the goods based on the trade unit price of each of the same industry at the time of the supply of the goods, as alleged by the Defendant, are not separately submitted. The order sheet submitted by the Defendant before the supply of the goods to the Plaintiff contains the quantity and unit price; the Defendant directly signed and accepted the acceptance certificate stating the quantity and unit price of the goods from the Plaintiff; and the Defendant without any objection as to the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff in relation to the price of the goods.