1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in electronic and automatic parts manufacturing and processing business, and the Defendant is a company that engages in plastic and automobile parts manufacturing business.

From December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff had been supplied with raw materials by the Defendant and processed them in gold form provided by the Defendant, thereby manufacturing automobile parts and delivering the produced automobile parts to the Defendant again.

B. From July 2015 to January 2016, the Plaintiff supplied raw materials from the Defendant to the Defendant, and supplied the Defendant with the window parts of the AD model A with an A-to-purged AD, and the monthly delivery quantity and unit price of the said parts are as shown in the attached Form.

C. When the Plaintiff closed its business due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the cost of supplying parts from the Defendant, around January 25, 2016, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant agreement was drafted by the Defendant’s coercion that the Defendant would not return the manufacture price of the parts of the AD model. However, in light of the written evidence evidence evidence Nos. 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 21, each of the written evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4 submitted by the Defendant’s representative director alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant agreement was written by the coercion of the Plaintiff’s representative director, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of evidence No. 1 is without merit.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”) was drafted, and accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 300,000,000 to the Plaintiff on the same day.

As a result, the plaintiff's business closure was inevitably decided due to business difficulties, because the plaintiff was not paid all the price of supplied goods from July 2015 to January 25, 2016, with respect to AD ITEM produced and supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant (supply of solar mineral products). It is recognized that the defendant is a clear unfair trade, and the result of the agreement between January 21, 2016 to January 24, 2016 is not the price of supplied goods.