Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,415,689 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 10, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that “Sadong Construction Co., Ltd. A” delegated all the authority to recover the claim for the price of the goods to “Sadong Construction Co., Ltd. A, and did not exercise individual authority, and thereafter, the Defendant agreed with the Credit Council A by transferring the claim held by the Defendant to “Sadong Construction Co., Ltd. A., Ltd., and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply

B. In addition to cases where an investigation is conducted outside the court (Article 297 of the Civil Procedure Act), the same shall also apply where a party is present at the date of pleading or on the date of preparation, and actually submits a documentary evidence, and where a written complaint, preparation, etc. accompanied by

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da15775 delivered on November 8, 1991). Although the Defendant attached a documentary evidence to the reply dated May 21, 2015, the above documentary evidence cannot be used as evidence because it did not appear on the date of pleading more than twice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.