1. The Defendant’s KRW 153,720,472 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 7, 2014 to October 15, 2015, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 201, the Plaintiff, a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling motor vehicle parts, etc., from the Defendant, a second sub-contractor of the Hyundai Motor Vehicle, began to listen to the development specifications of the DM-CAR model, supply the parts used for the automobile sets at the development stage. On February 28, 2012, upon receipt of a written request from the Defendant for the development of the motor vehicle parts for the DM-CAR model from the Defendant on February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff continuously supplied the instant parts to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) by concluding a contract for the supply of the motor vehicle parts listed in the item column in the attached Table 2 in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant parts”).

(A) Evidence No. 1). (b)

With respect to the calculation of the unit price of the instant parts, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to receive the difference between the fixed unit price and the provisional unit price retroactively from the time of the commencement of the supply, because it is difficult to calculate the unit price of the instant parts, since the price negotiations on the instant parts between Das Co., Ltd., which is the primary sub-contractor that supplies the parts produced by the Defendant from the Plaintiff as part of the parts supplied by the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract had been conducted with the Das Co., Ltd., which is the primary sub-contractor that is to supply the parts of the instant parts.

A. (Evidence A. 17, 31)

On March 2012, the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendant on the unit price by sending the data set forth in the unit price of the instant parts to the Defendant. First of all, the Plaintiff supplied the instant parts with the price for the goods equivalent to the amount indicated in the unit price column in attached Form 2 in the calculation table of damages.

(A) Evidence 2 1, 2)

D. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to agree on the fixed unit price, but did not hear the answer from the Defendant and received only the price for goods with a unit price and supplied the instant part on January 29, 2013 while supplying the instant part.