1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company supplying food materials and canning, etc., and the Defendant is a person operating C who distributes food materials and canning.

B. The Plaintiff supplied food materials, etc. to the Defendant by September 29, 2017, and the amount payable by the Defendant as of September 29, 2017 is KRW 5,370,500.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the determination on the cause of the claim, the above facts revealed as follows: the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,370,500 payable to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 30, 2017 to January 5, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day following the last delivery date, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant suffered the following losses due to the plaintiff, and thus the plaintiff's claim amount is unfair and certain amount should be reduced.

① The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the unit price of a part of the goods at a higher level than 5-10% of the like competitive company, and offered the Defendant’s request for price adjustment.

As a result, the defendant suffered a lot of difficulties in operating the business, such as reducing 5 to 10% of the progress rate of the defendant.

② As the Defendant inevitably purchased goods from large retailer, etc. and supplied them to customers without prior notification, the Defendant’s additional costs incurred therefrom and reduced the Mad Ratio of the Defendant.

③ The Plaintiff’s delivery employee frequently unloaded goods from the Defendant’s warehouse that is not a Defendant’s warehouse to the general public at a distance of 40 meters from the Defendant’s warehouse. Accordingly, the Defendant’s road changes.