1. The Defendant shall pay 143,08,000 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from July 13, 2013 to the day of full payment.

1. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4-1 through 36, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 36, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through 19, Gap evidence Nos. 7, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 through 35, Gap evidence Nos. 8-9, Eul evidence Nos. 9, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of checks with the defendant around May 2007, and continuously supplied checks to the defendant from around that time to November 2011, 201; the price for goods which the plaintiff did not receive from the defendant can be acknowledged as 143,08,00 as of November 7, 201, and there is no obligation to dispute with the plaintiff around October 2011, or to pay damages for delay to the plaintiff at the above 30% of the total amount of goods No. 301 to 301, etc.

2. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion. The Defendant asserts that since the Defendant settled the unpaid amount of KRW 80,000,000 upon the termination of the transaction with the Plaintiff around October 201, and issued a promissory note worth KRW 80,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s payment for the goods to be paid to the Plaintiff does not remain.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, the defendant issued five promissory notes with face value 15,000, face value 13,000,000 (each due date for payment, January 31, 2013; 28, Feb. 28, 2013; 2013; 31, Mar. 31, 2013; 30, Apr. 30, 201; 31, May 31, 2013) to the plaintiff, each of the above promissory notes was issued and delivered to the plaintiff around the due date. However, the fact that each of the promissory notes was paid around the due date.