1. The Defendant’s KRW 137,060,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from August 30, 2017 to February 23, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff sold one of the instant freezing machine (E; hereinafter referred to as “instant freezing machine”) to the Defendant at KRW 195,80,000 (including value-added tax). Of the above purchase price, a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter referred to as “instant goods supply contract”) with a content that the remainder equivalent to 30% of the purchase price shall be paid in May 2017, and the remainder equivalent to 70% of the purchase price shall be paid in July 2017. At that time, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to receive the said purchase price within 60 days after the issuance of the tax invoice, and delivered the said one of the said cargo freezing machine to the Defendant.

B. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice for KRW 5,8740,000, out of the purchase price, as well as the tax invoice for the same year.

6. 30. A tax invoice for the balance of KRW 137,060 out of the purchase price was written and issued as the recipient of each of the Defendant.

C. On May 30, 2017, the Defendant paid only the down payment of KRW 5874,740,000 to the Plaintiff, and did not pay the remainder KRW 137,706 million to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 137 million not paid and the amount calculated by each of the annual 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 30, 2017 to February 23, 2018, which is clear that the service date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, which is the date following the due date of payment of the remainder of the purchase price agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, is the date of payment of the outstanding purchase price to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the defendant's defense 1 is that the defendant bid for the freezing of F, which is a military installation of the Republic of Korea, and ordered the above construction, and entered into the goods supply contract with the plaintiff for the above construction, and the supervisory body of the above construction was the Ministry of National Defense.