1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 2,453,00 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from August 21, 2018 to February 7, 2020.

1. Where the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the judgment on the cause of the claim No. 1, Gap evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 5, the defendant entered into a supply contract with the plaintiff around February 2018, under which the plaintiff would receive the processing and supply of machinery parts from the plaintiff and the defendant would pay the price (hereinafter "supply contract of this case"). The plaintiff filed a claim for KRW 4,620,00 (hereinafter "supply price of this case") after processing and supplying the machinery parts to the defendant pursuant to the above supply contract, but the defendant did not pay the price. According to the above facts acknowledged, the defendant is obligated to pay the above price of supply 4,620,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) concluded a contract for the processing and supply of machinery parts with the Plaintiff in 2017 and received only KRW 12,210,00,00 from the Plaintiff, so the Defendant’s payment of KRW 14,37,00 from the Plaintiff is offset against the Defendant’s claim for the supply of goods in this case against the Plaintiff. 2,167,00,000, the Defendant is the lessee of 200 square meters out of KRW 590,000 on the ground C’s 590,000 on the ground of Kim Sea-si, and the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 5,00,000 among the monthly rent of KRW 1,00 under the above sub-lease contract from February 2, 2018 to June 2018, the Defendant paid the full amount to D, which the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff (i.e., the Defendant’s claim for the supply of goods in this case against the Plaintiff).

3) If the above set-off is conducted, the claim for the supply of goods in this case does not remain, so the defendant is not obligated to pay the plaintiff the above claim for the supply of goods. B. The defendant is not obligated to pay the plaintiff the above claim for the supply of goods in 2017. The arguments are made in each of the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 4 and 7.