1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,970,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from July 10, 2014 to December 23, 2015.

1. On April 4, 2014, total value of value-added tax on the date of delivery of the fact-finding number: KRW 6,540,00 won 654,194,00 won 7,190,000 won 7,194,000 won on April 7, 2014; KRW 436,796,000 won 4,796,000 won on April 12, 2014; KRW 11,90,000 on April 10, 2014; KRW 1,90,90,000 on April 23, 2014; KRW 1,90,000 on KRW 1,90,000,000 on the aggregate of KRW 11,90,90,000 on the aggregate of KRW 35,90,00,00 on each of the above industrial tapes; the Plaintiff’s assertion and retail 1503,00.

[Defendant asserts that only engaged in goods transaction with B, who operated D and did not enter into a transaction with the Plaintiff. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff issued the following electronic tax invoices to the Defendant, the Defendant filed a purchase declaration according to the tax invoice and received a refund of value-added tax, and that D, which was operated by B closed on March 30, 2014, the Defendant’s argument is difficult to accept.]

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 35,970,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from July 10, 2014 to December 23, 2015, which is the date of the sentencing of the judgment, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

[On the other hand, on June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied a tape equivalent to KRW 4,412,320 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant, which is in accordance with the agreement that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with defective goods equivalent to KRW 24,428,250 from October 1, 2013 to October 25, 2013, and the Defendant provided new goods equivalent to the value thereof (no dispute exists between the parties).