1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 314,910,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 1, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On March 29, 2013, from around September 30, 2014 to around September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 326,130,000 in total, including the SPS (in-house type) that is an electric power source supply device entering LED lighting. Around March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff was returned from the Defendant with goods worth KRW 11,220,00 in total.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 314,910,000 for the goods (=326,130,000 - 11,220,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from June 1, 2017, which is the day following the day when this judgment is rendered, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of assumption of obligation, the Defendant asserts that there is no obligation to pay to the Defendant as the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff was transferred by all over-round October 2014 by the Plaintiff Company B established by the Defendant.

However, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff consented to the Defendant’s acceptance of the Defendant’s above goods payment obligation, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant is exempted from the obligation to pay the above goods.

The above argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s defense to deduct damages due to defects occurred in the SPS products that were produced and supplied by the Plaintiff around September 2014, but the Plaintiff did not comply with the request for repair of defects, and the Defendant sustained damages due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive payment from the seller, and the equivalent amount of damages should be deducted from the price of the goods.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the defect of the above product or the fact of the defendant's loss by only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The above defense is without merit.

(c) defense of immunity;