1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)’s written statements and arguments as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, it is recognized that the defendant drafted a c’s note that the Plaintiff would pay 12,540,000 won directly to the Plaintiff by April 30, 201 (hereinafter the “instant payment note”) with the content that the Plaintiff would directly pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 12,540,000 to the Plaintiff on September 8, 201.

Meanwhile, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff received KRW 5,00,000 as the principal from the Defendant on January 7, 2012 as the principal amount of the said goods.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining price of KRW 7,540,00 (=12,540,000 - 5,000,000) and as requested by the plaintiff the remaining price of the goods, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from May 1, 2011 to April 8, 2016, on which the original copy of the payment order in this case was served, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant letter of payment is null and void as the Plaintiff was supplied with a low-quality simpled salt and supplied it to E and supplied it with good quality (hereinafter “original amount or refined amount”). The Defendant, who was aware of the supplied amount to the Defendant, prepared the instant letter of payment with the knowledge of the salted amount as the original amount, thereby asserting that the payment angle is null and void as it is by deception by the Plaintiff.

However, it is not sufficient to admit the defendant's above assertion only with the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

According to the above evidence, the plaintiff was supplied with the destroyed amount of heavy light products from F in Gyeongnamsan around September 2009, but Eul was supplied with the destroyed amount of heavy light products.