1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 52,980,950 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from October 1, 2014 to November 18, 2014; and (b) the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the fact that the plaintiff, a corporation for the purpose of processing and selling originals, entered into a contract with the defendant, who operated the individual company for manufacturing the clothes "B", to supply originals, which are raw materials necessary for manufacturing the clothing around May 27, 2014, and ② the plaintiff provided originals of the total amount of KRW 52,980 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and KRW 13,22,00 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and KRW 39,758,950 on July 31, 2014, with the originals of KRW 52,980,950, which are raw materials necessary for manufacturing the clothing.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 52,980,950 won for the unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from October 1, 2014 to November 18, 2014, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

(1) The defendant's claim for the payment of the price for the goods to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was not paid the price for the goods because the defendant received the request from the plaintiff to use the plaintiff's original hair with the plaintiff's original hair in the course of the defendant's production of the garEX, and the defendant also did not pay the price for the goods to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the price for the goods directly against the defendant for the Manex is unreasonable. However, the defendant's claim for the payment of the price for the goods under the contract for the supply of goods entered into with the plaintiff is without merit. Thus, the defendant's claim for this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.