1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,59,075 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from January 1, 2016 to May 11, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures and distributes computer auxiliary equipment with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a corporation that manufactures and engages in wholesale and retail business for computers.

B. From around 2008, the Plaintiff has been doing transactions with the Defendant by manufacturing goods ordered by the so-called “OEM” method after receiving orders from the Defendant’s purchasing staff, such as oral keyboards, Mas, and cases, and delivering them to the Defendant.

C. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied 1,824 cases ordered to the Defendant, and around July 2014, the Plaintiff ordered 5,000 kids, and Mas 5,000 Mas 5,000 from the Defendant’s purchase staff-in-charge, and supplied Mas and Mas kids to the Defendant on August 26, 2014.

After the Plaintiff supplied the Mas and Key on August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff did not order the Plaintiff to sell goods any longer, and thus the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was suspended. The Plaintiff did not receive the total amount of KRW 81,171,839 (including value-added tax) from the Defendant as of November 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, witness D's testimony, witness E's partial testimony, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 81,171,839 and damages for delay, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s defense, etc., the Defendant: (a) the type of transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant supplied a certain quantity of goods to the warehouse owned by the Defendant that the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant; and (b) thereafter, the Defendant uses it as necessary quantity and pays the amount of goods in proportion to the amount used; and (c) the Plaintiff did not use only 1,321 out of the number of cases 1,824 supplied on July 30, 2014 and 503 out of the number of 1,50.51,504.