1. The Defendant’s KRW 64,133,580 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from March 15, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the fact that the plaintiff cut and processed materials, such as 171,627,280 won in total, from August 25, 2017 to November 25, 2018, and supplied them to the defendant, and the defendant paid the plaintiff a sum of KRW 107,493,700 in total to the plaintiff (i.e., the amount of KRW 107,493,700 on December 6, 2017) (i.e., KRW 25,000 on April 10, 2018).

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 64,133,580 (i.e., KRW 171,627,280 - KRW 107,493,70) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) from March 15, 2019 to May 31, 2019 (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) and the statutory interest rate of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019).

On the other hand, the Plaintiff seeks to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum for the period from June 1, 2019 to 64,13,580 won.

However, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019 and enforced June 1, 2019) and Article 2(2) of the Addenda, the statutory interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings was 12% per annum from June 1, 2019.

Therefore, from June 1, 2019, it is only possible to order the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in excess is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are justified.