The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is a merchant who manufactures machinery, etc. in the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a merchant who manufactures gold in the trade name of “D.”

B. Around May 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to sell the sex organ (hereinafter “instant machine”) through the Defendant’s husband E, who represented the Defendant.

C. Around May 2014, the Defendant sold the instant machinery to NonStec Co., Ltd. for KRW 45,000,000, and paid KRW 20,000 among them to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sales commission of KRW 7,00,000,000 deducted from the sales commission of KRW 38,000,000, which the plaintiff is the plaintiff among the sales proceeds of the instant machinery and to pay damages for delay calculated at each annual rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from February 25, 2015 to November 30, 2016, which is the date when the judgment is rendered in the first instance, to the plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the defendant's performance obligation.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) The defendant asserts that the other party who entered into a sales consignment agreement of the instant machinery is not the defendant.

On August 18, 2015, and July 26, 2016, the Defendant submitted a written reply to the effect that “There is a fact that it has been entrusted with the sale of the tobacco sales as alleged by the Plaintiff,” and each of the above answers was made on the date for pleading.

As a result, a confession was established between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the existence of an agreement on the consignment of sale of the instant machinery.