1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,014,975 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 21, 2014 to September 5, 2014.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, and distributing kimchi, and the Defendant is a person who runs the wholesale and retail business of food under the trade name of “B”.

The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with kimchi from January 11, 2012 to January 20, 2014.

The price of goods that the Plaintiff was not paid by the Defendant was KRW 45,014,975 as of January 21, 2014.

On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the price for the goods on several occasions by sending a content-certified mail requesting the Defendant to pay the price for the goods by April 30, 2014. On August 13, 2014, the Plaintiff received payment of KRW 10 million from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) that entered into a guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant.

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

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 35,014,975 (i.e., KRW 45,014,975 - KRW 10 million) and damages for delay, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the assertion on the violation of the contract of deferment of payment period, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff attached the real estate owned by the defendant to the defendant until December 31, 2014, which was deferred due to the delay of the payment period for the goods until the expiration of the period, and that due to the provisional attachment of the real estate held by the defendant before the expiration of the period, the defendant was faced with difficulties in receiving the loan as a collateral, and the place of business was closed, which led to the bankruptcy, and thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the claim for return of the deposit for the warehouse lease provided as collateral was caused by provisional attachment because the claim for return of the deposit for the warehouse lease provided as collateral has no value of the collateral. 2) The defendant decided on February 23, 2014 to pay the "the plaintiff's attempted credit amount (