1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,089,200 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from December 12, 2014 to August 11, 2015.

1. The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including each number), together with the purport of the entire pleadings:

The plaintiff entered into a contract for the production and processing of general households and main households with the defendant, and from March 31, 2014 to the same year.

4. up to 24. By the time of being ordered by the Defendant, the product, size, and quantity were ordered by the Defendant through a specific production drawing and work instruction.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff from April 1, 2014 to the same year.

5. By the time of 15.15. The number of households that the plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the processing work is 3,844, Soviet work 17,630 meters, 355.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay working expenses calculated according to the unit price as above to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff agreed to pay 2,500 won per unit (2,500 won per unit (2,500 won per unit) at the time of concluding the pre-contract with the Defendant at the time of concluding the pre-contract with the Defendant, and the Soviet 800 won per unit (1,000 won).

With respect to the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant would pay the working cost applying the unit price as claimed by the Plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

However, with respect to the part of the Plaintiff’s work supplied, the Defendant is the foundation work of KRW 1,800 per head, KRW 500 per head, KRW 1,00 per head, and KRW 1,00 per head,00 per head, respectively. Accordingly, according to this, the Defendant’s work cost to be paid to the Plaintiff is the total of KRW 16,089,200 ( KRW 1,800 x 3,844) ( KRW 500 x 17,630 x 355).

B. The defendant's defense was found to be defective in part of the goods that the plaintiff worked and supplied, and thus the defendant requires KRW 8,500,000 in the process of manufacturing and delivering them again, and thus the above amount is equivalent to the above amount.