1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 73,651,00 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 24, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in mechanical processing and metal-type manufacturing business under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person engaged in automobile parts manufacturing business under the trade name of “D.”

B. The Plaintiff’s KRW 1,673,100 on November 30, 2016, and KRW 38,764,00 on December 31, 2016, and KRW 20,839,50 on January 31, 2017; and

2. On 12,375,00 won in total, 73,651,600 won in total and issued a tax invoice corresponding to each of the above amounts to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned seeks payment of the unpaid amount of goods against the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the amount of claim is an amount unilaterally determined by the plaintiff without an agreement on the price of gold price, and this is an amount which is not considered at all of the debtor's losses against gold price, and thus, it cannot be recognized.

B. In light of the facts seen earlier prior to the determination of the cause of the claim and the following circumstances inferred therefrom, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff a penalty equivalent to KRW 76,651,600 in total.

Ultimately, the defendant is liable to pay the price of goods calculated on the premise of the foregoing and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

1) The Plaintiff issued a statement of transaction in which the unit price is indicated to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s employee signed the above statement of transaction while accepting the monetary penalty. In the process, the circumstances in which the Defendant raised an objection against the unit price do not appear to exist. 2) The Plaintiff manufactured and supplied goods based on the above statement of transaction, and issued an electronic tax invoice as seen earlier.

3 The defendant asserts that he was supplied with gold punishment and did not separately set the price for the goods through consultation, but he did not trade.