1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,937,003 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from August 8, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the pipe was produced and supplied to the Defendant from May 2015 to June 2015, 2015, but the Plaintiff did not receive the value-added tax of KRW 22,937,00 in total (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 2,936,453 in May 2015 (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 18,182,319 in June 6, 2015) and thus, sought payment of the price. (ii) The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination 1,2, and 4 (including a serial number) as a whole, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in each of the above-mentioned arguments, and a contract under which the Plaintiff, who runs manufacturing business, such as vessel repair, etc., manufactures and sells pipes to the Defendant, a corporation manufacturing and selling the land, marine pipe (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

(1) The Plaintiff entered into the instant supply contract: (a) pipes equivalent to KRW 32,30,92 in total around May 2015 (i) value of KRW 29,364,539 value-added tax of KRW 2,936,453); (b) total amount of KRW 20,00,50 (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 18,182,319 value-added tax of KRW 18,818,231 value-added tax) can be acknowledged as having been supplied to the Defendant; (c) the Plaintiff was paid KRW 29,364,539 on May 2015 with the supply price of KRW 22,937,039 in total; (d) value-added tax of KRW 2,936,539 in value-added tax of KRW 2,936,539 in value-added tax); and (e) the Defendant’s obligation to pay the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s damages for delay in total 150,50.5 minutes.

The settlement agreement is deemed to be true, but only a statement of the settlement of the cost of processing for five months is attached, and it is settled for six months.