1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 6,917,244 as well as to the plaintiff on September 12, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who manufactures and sells textile products, and the defendant is a person who manufactures and sells chemical products.

B. From April 2014 to April 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) received the order from the customer and provided the Defendant with the original body necessary for the original body; (b) ordered the original body by placing an order; and (c) supplied the original body to the salt processing company requested by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s customer); and (d) supplied the original body by delivering it to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s customer).

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant suspended the above transactional relationship, and around May 2, 2017, paid KRW 15,646,503 among the original processing fees of KRW 17,471,498 that the Plaintiff was not paid to the Defendant, and brought about the original parts and originals remaining in the Defendant factory.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s claim was that it was returned to the Defendant on November 1, 2016, the original group of KRW 1,681.2kg, which was sold to the Defendant by requesting the Defendant to be removed from the original group, and that it was the product defect amount of KRW 1,057.2kg, which was kept in salt processing company (D). Of the original group of KRW 3,820.12kg, which the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant during the transaction period, was not used in the original group, and was not returned to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant had the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 1,824,82,00, total of KRW 14,240,200, KRW 6,063,722, and KRW 6,303,922, and KRW 1,824,95, and KRW 2088,00,000.

There is no proof to the defendant that the defendant is responsible even if there is a poor domestic affairs or a poor domestic affairs.

On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff released both the original body and the original body in the Defendant’s custody while settling transactions with the Defendant.

(b) the entry of the part of the original return of the judgment 1 in Eul evidence 1-2 and the witness of the trial court;