1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 361,189,527 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from January 1, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person whose main business purpose is cable wholesale and retail business. The Defendant is a personal entrepreneur engaged in construction business, such as electrical construction, in the name of B, and the Plaintiff received an order from the Defendant and supplied goods such as cables, etc. for information and communications construction to the Defendant from May 2014 to September 201 of the same year. The Defendant did not pay KRW 361,189,527 out of the price of supply of goods such as the above cable supplied by the Plaintiff to the present date, and there is no dispute between the parties.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 1, 2014 to the date following the end of three months after the month when the goods are supplied between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, as requested by the plaintiff, as the payment period for the unpaid price of the goods and the unpaid price of the goods. According to the above argument, the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the end of January 1, 2015 to the date when three months elapse after the last day of the month when the goods were supplied to the defendant, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant filed an application for provisional seizure against the defendant on the ground that the claim for the supply of goods against the defendant was not due, but the claim was not due.

Accordingly, the defendant deposited all of the money the plaintiff claimed as the claim in the above provisional seizure case as the deposit for provisional seizure.

Therefore, even if the price of supplied goods which the plaintiff is seeking by the lawsuit of this case has already been extinguished due to the above deposit or has not been extinguished by domestic affairs, the defendant was enormous due to the above unfair provisional seizure of the plaintiff.