The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 47,961,680 as well as 6% per annum from December 31, 2015 to April 1, 2016 and the next day.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions (including various numbers) and the entire purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant running the restaurant a total of KRW 47,961,680 up to December 30, 2015, the amount of KRW 47,961,680, and the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from December 31, 2015 to April 1, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, from the date following the date of the final supply, until April 1, 2016, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant argues that the product price supplied to a third party, not the defendant, includes the product price supplied to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff did not settle the price for the product returned to the plaintiff. However, according to the entries in Gap 1-3, it can be sufficiently recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant engaged in the above high-tech transactions, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of returning the products supplied by the plaintiff. Thus, the above part of the argument is not acceptable

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.