1. The Defendant’s annual period from April 8, 2016 to June 21, 2017, as to KRW 347,221,428 and KRW 192,121,428 among the Plaintiff.

The fact that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with goods equivalent to the total amount of KRW 192,121,428, including electric source supply system SPS, from October 2014 to December 2015 according to the product supply contract with the defendant, that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with goods equivalent to the total amount of KRW 192,121,428, such as electric source supply system SPS, does not conflict between the parties, or that the plaintiff is recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 8, and 10, the plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods with the defendant around June 2, 2015 as to the total amount of 6.10 SPS 66,00,000 bits total of 155,100,000, and accordingly, it is recognized that the manufacturing of the above products has been completed (the above contract for the supply of goods was made orally through continuous transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it is difficult to view otherwise even if the defendant's written order and other disposition documents were not prepared). Accordingly, the judgment of the defendant is that the defendant's obligation to pay to the plaintiff 347,221,428 won (=192,121,428 won, 15,1000 won, 192,121,428 won, calculated annually from the following day to the 2016th day of the litigation.

The Plaintiff also claims damages for delay of KRW 155,100,000 for the remainder of the goods. However, in this case, the Defendant’s obligation to pay and the Plaintiff’s obligation to deliver the goods are concurrently performed, and in case where both obligations are jointly performed in bilateral contract, even if one of the obligations becomes due, the other party’s obligation is not performed until the other party’s obligation is performed.