1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,523,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from January 31, 2014 to May 1, 2015.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with fishery products, and as of January 30, 2014, the fact that the outstanding amount was 61,523,000.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 61,523,000 won as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from January 31, 2014 to May 1, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, as the plaintiff seeks.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the following amount should be reduced for the following reasons:

In other words, the plaintiff agreed to reduce 10 million won out of the above payment.

② Fishery products stored by the Plaintiff were dead and could not be used. The portion was included in the supplied amount and calculated.

The volume shall be approximately KRW 20 million.

③ As the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice of KRW 100 million to the Defendant, the Defendant was subject to a penalty surcharge of KRW 40 million at the tax office where the Defendant’s punishment was received in an unreasonable manner.

① The Defendant, ② there is no evidence to prove this.

③ In addition to the absence of evidence to acknowledge such fact, even if such fact is recognized, the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the penalty surcharge is not attributable to the fact that the Defendant’s punishment was issued with a false tax invoice, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s act of not issuing the tax invoice

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified and acceptable.