1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,241,750 as well as 6% per annum from March 1, 2016 to November 25, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells textile products, and the Defendant is a company that sells textile products.

B. The Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant for the supply of clothing raw materials, such as EL-6028 TR, which the Plaintiff manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff, and supplied the Defendant with the raw materials b0 million won in total from February 29, 2014 to February 29, 2016.

C. However, the defendant paid only part of the original amount supplied by the plaintiff during the above transaction period, and did not pay the original amount of KRW 38,241,750 until the date of the closing of the argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged before the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 38,241,750 payable to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from March 1, 2016 to November 25, 2016, which is the delivery date of the original payment order, from March 1, 2016 to November 25, 2016, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the delivery date of the original

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that, among the original parts supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defect occurred in the original parts corresponding to the price of the goods claimed by the lawsuit in this case, and thus, the defendant was claimed from the customer for damages of 36 million won, so the defendant has no obligation to pay the goods to the plaintiff.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that a defect, as alleged by the defendant, occurred in the original body supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is rejected without examining the remainder

B. In addition, the Defendant’s payment of the goods claimed by the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff around February 26, 2016.