1. The Defendant’s KRW 392,750,869 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from September 29, 2018 to November 16, 2018 for the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, on September 1, 2015, entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of mobile phone liquid products, and continued to provide the Defendant with the mobile phone liquid products by January 31, 2018, but did not receive a total of KRW 392,750,869 from the Defendant.

Therefore, since January 2018, the plaintiff urged the defendant to pay the price for the goods, the defendant does not pay the price for the goods.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the price of the goods that is not paid to the plaintiff KRW 392,750,869 and damages for delay from February 1, 2018, which is after the date of the final supply.

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act:

3. The part dismissing part of the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not pay damages for delay from February 1, 2018, which is the day following the date of final supply, as to KRW 392,750,869 of the goods price, even if the Defendant received multiple requests for performance, but, in the event of an obligation with no fixed deadline, the obligor is liable for delay from the date following the date of receipt of the request for performance, the obligor has been discharged from the delay of performance.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the due date for the payment of the goods of this case arrives simultaneously with the supply of the goods, or that the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the payment of the unpaid goods prior to the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay exceeding the