1. As to KRW 76,565,920 and KRW 20,679,320 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 42,935,200 from May 1, 2016.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff, under the trade name “B” from March 2016 to June 2016, 2016, either assembled digital fish parts provided by the Defendant from around March 201 to around June 2016, and agreed to immediately receive the payment upon issuance of the tax invoice. Serial 20,667,480 20,679,679,320 20,679,320 20,635,200 - 42,935,935, 200 - 42,935, 200 - 42,935, 200 - 3030 - 12,951, 400 - 12,4051, 76,506, 405, 962, 92, and 95).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings

B. As to KRW 76,565,920 and KRW 20,679,320 from May 1, 2016 to KRW 42,935,20, and KRW 12,951,40 from July 1, 2016 to KRW 12,951,40 from July 26, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act and KRW 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. As to the defendant's argument

A. The parties’ assertion 1) As the Defendant Plaintiff occupied KRW 80,340,665, which is the Defendant’s assets, without having returned KRW 80,340,665, the Defendant should instead be paid KRW 3,773,745 from the Plaintiff. 2) As to the said parts, the Defendant is exercising the right of retention.

B. According to Article 58 of the Commercial Code, in a case where a claim arising from a commercial activity between merchants is due, the obligee may retain goods or securities owned by the obligor due to his/her commercial activity with the obligor until repayment is made. Since the Plaintiff occupies parts owned by the Defendant under the commercial lien, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.