1. The Defendant’s KRW 83,109,682 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 30, 2014 to December 18, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 29, 2013, the Plaintiff, a corporation operating aggregate production and sales business, entered into a contract with the Defendant for mineral and by-products production (hereinafter “instant contract”) under which the Plaintiff installs aggregate production facilities within the instant mine site with respect to the disposal of mineral and by-products from the mine located in the Gowon-gun, Gowon-gun, Gowon-gun, Gowon-gun, Gowon-gun, Gowon-gun, Gowon-gun, 178-1 (hereinafter “instant mine”), and the Plaintiff produces and supplies aggregate by-products from the instant mine according to the prescribed production schedule, quantity, and price.

B. From August 2013 to July 2014, the Plaintiff produced aggregate of approximately KRW 329,133,860 square meters of aggregate, including rock, mixed stone, stone, and thorium, and supplied it to the Defendant.

From September 17, 2013 to June 30, 2014, the Defendant deducted the total of 46,411,650 won from the aggregate amount to be borne by the Plaintiff from the aggregate amount, and paid KRW 188,776,829 in total.

C. Around April 2014, the Defendant unilaterally notified the Plaintiff that it could not supply rocks used as raw materials for aggregate production, and accordingly, the Plaintiff was immediately notified.

Since the creation of aggregate in the port, aggregate has not been produced any more.

On July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the payment of the unpaid aggregate production price, and the Defendant agreed to deduct the amount of electricity, oil, and soil price adjustment from the unpaid aggregate production price, and settle the final aggregate production price at KRW 83,109,682 (hereinafter “instant settlement agreement”).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant made an agreement on the defense prior to the merits that "the competent court shall be the District Court" under the contract of this case. The lawsuit of this case is filed in violation of the agreed jurisdiction and is to be the above court.