1. The Defendant’s KRW 99,413,702 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from October 22, 2013 to August 7, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of processed food, household goods, etc. with the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a person who operated the Smarket in the name of "E" in Namnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. By October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied processed food and household goods to the Defendant. By the time, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 92,121,428 of the processed food price and KRW 7,371,804 of the household goods by the Defendant.

C. The Defendant returned goods worth KRW 79,530 to the Plaintiff three times on October 8, 2013, the same month, and the same month on December 22, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, each statement of evidence of 15 to 20 (including each number), witness F, and G's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total sum of KRW 99,413,702 (the total amount of the processed food price of KRW 92,121,428, KRW 7,371,804, KRW 79,530) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from October 23, 2013 to August 7, 2015, which is the day following the date the defendant returned the goods to the plaintiff by the defendant, to the extent of the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s father H, from around 2005, entered into a transaction with the Plaintiff and entered into a direct transaction price. However, the Plaintiff did not recognize the unit price specified in the transaction statement submitted by the Plaintiff, and agreed to make payment by revising the Defendant, if the Plaintiff had a separate settlement of accounts in each month. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim amount based on the unit price stated in the transaction statement submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be recognized. 2) The Defendant’s monthly payment to the Plaintiff is a fixed letter.