1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 51,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 3, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with mooring, etc. by January 6, 2016, and the amount of goods unpaid as of March 7, 2016 reaches KRW 51 million.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 51 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 3, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when a copy of the complaint was served to the Defendant, as the Plaintiff seeks.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, on October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the price of the goods by endorsement of the face value of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the foregoing bill can be recognized as having been finally defaulted on or around January 10, 2017, which is the due date, and where a bill is issued for the performance of obligations, it is presumed to have been issued for the payment instead of the payment for the existing cause obligations, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the existing cause obligations are not extinguished solely on the ground that the bill

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da44019 Decided December 23, 2010). Ultimately, since the Defendant’s delivery of a bill to the Plaintiff does not extinguish the obligation to pay the price for the goods, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.