1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 185,872,200 and KRW 164,79,579 among the Plaintiff, from April 18, 2017 to February 2, 2018.

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the determination as to the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the plaintiff is a juristic person with the purpose of wholesale and retail business, etc. of wastewater treatment chemicals, and the defendant is a person engaged in fiber processing business under the trade name of "C", and the plaintiff supplied wastewater treatment chemicals, etc. to the defendant until February 24, 2014, and the plaintiff still had 164,79,579 won due to the supply of the unpaid goods as of February 24, 2014. The defendant paid KRW 10,000 to the plaintiff on April 17, 2017.

According to these facts, the above 10,000,000 won is first appropriated for the repayment of 31,072,621 won (=164,79,579 x 0.06 x 0.06 x 0.06 x 52 days/365 days) for the interest accrued from February 25, 2014 to April 17, 2017, which is the last transaction day following the last transaction day.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 164,79,579 and the remaining damages for delay (i.e., KRW 31,072,621 - KRW 10,000) plus KRW 185,872,20 and the principal of KRW 164,79,579,579 among them, to the Plaintiff, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from April 18, 2017 until February 2, 2018 when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the date of full payment.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserted that D accepted the defendant's obligation to pay for the goods of this case against the plaintiff, and thereafter, the above company satisfied its obligation, and thus, the claim of this case is unlawful.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (including each number), the Defendant and D Co., Ltd., on March 12, 2014, all rights and duties regarding the business that the Defendant had operated under the trade name of “C” are collectively set forth as “C.”