1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,923,570 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from March 27, 2014 to March 31, 2015.

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the serial number) of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods for the construction of a new building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public building of the public

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 23,923,570 won with 20% interest per annum under the Commercial Act and 20% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 27, 2014 to March 31, 2015, which is the date following the day on which the payment order of this case was served to the plaintiff, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation of this case.

(A) The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages for delay from June 26, 2013 to March 26, 2014. However, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the payment period of the above goods has arrived on June 25, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part is without merit). 2. The Defendant’s claim as to the Defendant’s claim is alleged that there was no fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of the above goods. However, according to each of the evidence No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 (including the serial number) of the Plaintiff’s on-site agent, the Defendant’s claim for the above goods can be accepted as follows. In light of these circumstances, the Defendant’s claim cannot be accepted since the fact that the above goods supply contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s agent, as seen earlier.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.