1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 37,793,90 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 12, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in manufacturing and wholesale business of motor vehicle parts, agricultural machinery parts, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person engaged in manufacturing business of electrical and electronic equipment, parts, etc. under the trade name of “D

B. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with automobile parts, including cables worth KRW 58,793,90 (hereinafter “instant goods”), which were totaled from October 2015, but the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the goods. The sum of the amount of the goods unpaid at the time of the instant lawsuit is KRW 37,793,90.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the payment of the unpaid amount of KRW 37,393,90 and the delay damages therefor. The defendant asserted that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim since there were defects in the goods of this case supplied by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not accept them.

B. In light of the facts established above, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 37,793,900, and damages for delay, barring special circumstances.

On the other hand, as alleged by the defendant, we examine whether defects occurred in the goods of this case supplied by the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion. Thus, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 37,393,90 for the unpaid goods and the amount of delay damages calculated by adding 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 12, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is obvious that the duplicate of the application for the instant payment order was served on the Defendant as requested by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.