1. The Defendant’s KRW 39,283,838 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from July 1, 2016 to July 14, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a processing contract with the Defendant, under which the Plaintiff was supplied with water conditioning parts from the Defendant and processed them and supplied them to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant processing contract”).

B. From November 2015 to May 201, 2016, the Plaintiff processed the part of the water level cleaning apparatus pursuant to the instant contract and supplied it to the Defendant or the Defendant’s transaction partner as follows, and issued the corresponding electronic tax invoices.

On November 30, 2015, 14,429, 140 December 31, 2015, 31,994, 370, 370, 44,00,00 on March 24, 2016, 31, 33,005, 747 303,05, 405, 43, 4305, 43 May 10, 2016, total 126,351,340 on December 31, 2016, 31,000.

C. Meanwhile, between December 31, 2015 and April 29, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 87,067,502 in total to the Plaintiff and the commission for processing for the products supplied by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 39,283,838 (i.e., total processing fees of KRW 126,351,340 - discretionary processing fees of KRW 87,067,50), and to pay 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from July 1, 2016 to July 14, 2016, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that ① the cost of processing the contract for the Plaintiff’s claim is calculated erroneously, and thus, even if not, there is a defect in the products supplied by the Plaintiff; ② the liability for damages therefrom is offset by the automatic claim, or ③ the Plaintiff violated the payment period under the instant contract, and thus offset the compensation for delay by the automatic claim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge each of the above allegations.