1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 139,623,568 as well as 20% per annum from February 6, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff, who sells plastic raw material in the name of "C" from June 201 to October 2012, supplied plastic raw material processing business in the name of "D" (hereinafter "recoverable material of this case"), and the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,450,829 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), 7,917,939, 59, 200 to September 2012, 201, and 59,254,797,79,79,79, and 77,939, 2012 to October 10, 2012 to the defendant who runs the plastic raw material processing business (hereinafter "recoverable material of this case"). Thus, the defendant is not obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 139,254,975,975.7

The defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff should calculate the price according to the weight of the recyclable material of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and was supplied with the recyclable material of this case from the plaintiff around October 2012. The defendant found that the recycling material of this case supplied by the plaintiff around October 2012 is mixed with a considerable percentage of the recycling material of this case. The plaintiff does not have an obligation to pay the price equivalent to the weight of the above recycling material of this case to the defendant, and therefore, the price equivalent to the weight should be deducted from the above unpaid price.

According to the testimony of witness E, appraiser E, appraiser F's appraisal results, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the facts that the Defendant's recycling material of this case supplied by the Plaintiff contains 13.3% of inorganic dust ingredients, not plastic ingredients, and on the other hand, the Defendant's “G” recycling material may be acknowledged that inorganic dust ingredients are included 1.1% of inorganic dust ingredients. However, according to the above-mentioned evidence and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, the Plaintiff is in accordance with the aforementioned evidence.