1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 133,160,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from August 4, 2016 to February 17, 2017.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the defendant and received goods from the defendant until August 3, 2016, and the total amount of the goods was 133,160,000.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the price of the above goods and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

On December 15, 2016, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was not obligated to pay the price for the goods to the plaintiff since the defendant exempted the defendant from the obligation to pay the price for the goods since the plaintiff was prepared with a promissory note No. 123,00,00 won on December 15, 2016, and the fact that B, the defendant's spouse, issued a promissory note No. 123,00,000 won on December 15, 2016, and the fact that a promissory note No. notarial deed was prepared with the plaintiff was not disputed between the parties, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff expressed his intention to exempt the defendant from the obligation. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 13,160,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 4, 2016 to February 17, 2017, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.