1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 34,921,40 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from August 18, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 10 (each number is included), the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant on December 6, 2007 on the condition that the plaintiff will be supplied and sold to the general public. The plaintiff continued to supply the above goods from March 14, 2008 to December 31, 2012, but the supply of the above goods to the defendant from January 1, 2013 to May 2013, 2013; the plaintiff continued to suspend the supply of the above goods to the defendant; the defendant from around January 1, 2013 to around December 31, 2012 to around December 31, 2012; the remaining goods from around 19,500,000 won out of the balance of the goods price to the defendant; and the remaining goods from around 31, 2014 to the remaining amount of the goods supplied to the defendant were reduced to 130.4.1.6.0

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 34,921,400 won for the above goods and delay damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that, through the Plaintiff’s performance assistant C, 26,00,00 won paid as the cost of the defective repair of the said non-fixed goods and 19,526,853 won paid by the Defendant as the cost of the defective repair of the non-fixed goods, since the Defendant sustained damages by being supplied with 12 puplates, which are not those produced and produced by the Plaintiff, from March 5, 2014 to September 29, 2014.

The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is that C was the plaintiff's performance assistant during the above period of the defendant's assertion.

It is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff participated in the illegal act due to C's supply of non-fixed goods, and there is a different evidence to recognize it.