2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Around March 2014, Nonparty Company requested the Defendant to deliver 923pcs to Korea among the instant products currently in storage in Hong Kong at the above point of the Defendant, but the Defendant’s above point did not keep 923ps of the said products due to loss or theft.

Accordingly, the non-party company suffered losses equivalent to KRW 20,837.00, USD 1,041.85, USD 380.00, USD 25,077.00, and KRW 27,933,269, by converting the above product into Korean currency.

On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the above damage claim from the non-party company.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the head office, is obligated to pay the above money and damages for delay to the plaintiff as the transferee.

2. The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits of this case is the defense prior to the merits to the purport that the company, which the non-party company requested the local custody of the products of this case in Hong Kong, is not the Defendant’s branch, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it was filed against a non-party

However, in a lawsuit for performance as in the instant case, the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits is difficult to accept, since there is a standing to be the defendant against the person asserted as the performance obligor by the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 195).

3. First of all, we examine the plaintiff's claim and the fact that the defendant and the non-party company requested the local custody of the product of this case in Hong Kong is in the principal office or branch office.

The plaintiff submits evidence Nos. 5 through 8, 10, 11 as evidence corresponding to this point.

However, each of the above evidences is directly traded with the non-party company.