1. The Defendant’s KRW 192,721,859 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from July 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015 for the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are in charge of technical support for the development design and manufacture of lighting fixtures in relation to the business for the selection of an annual unit price contract company for lighting apartment in 2013, which is the place of order for construction around 2013, and the Plaintiff is in charge of technical support for the development design and manufacture of lighting fixtures, and the Defendant is in charge of the business affairs (hereinafter “the Agreement on

(2) The term of validity of the Agreement on the Business Partnership of this case is one year, but one year, if both parties are not notified of the termination of the agreement at least one month before the expiration of the term. (2) The Plaintiff developed and supplied the lighting organization to the Defendant pursuant to the Agreement on the Business Partnership of this case.

The Defendant paid all the price of goods to the Plaintiff until May 2014, but began to pay the price of goods from June 2014.

If the Defendant deducts KRW 115,219,335 of the last amount paid to the Plaintiff on June 10, 2015, the unpaid amount of goods remains 192,721,859 (including value-added tax).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3 through 17 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 192,721,859, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which was served on the Defendant with the original copy of the instant payment order, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant’s summary of the claim that the price of goods should be reduced is determined by applying the same supply price as the successful bid price, following the fact that the Defendant’s supply price is higher than the price of the lighting organization awarded the successful bid. As such, 50,853,000 won should be reduced from the price of goods. 2)