2. From April 2, 2019 to May 31, 2019, the Defendant paid KRW 1,285,400 to the Plaintiff and its related costs.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who supplies food materials to a restaurant with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant was a person who operated the frequency with the trade name of “D” from September 20, 2016 to December 29, 2016.

B. From September 24, 2016 to October 1, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied food materials to the Defendant.

C. On March 29, 2018, the Plaintiff complained of fraud with the purport that the Defendant, by deceiving himself, received food materials and received financial benefits equivalent to the same amount without paying KRW 1,285,400, and the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition of non-prosecution on the ground that he/she was suspected of having committed such a crime.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the facts of recognition of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, although the plaintiff was issued a disposition that "the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in fraud" was taken, the plaintiff's delivery of food materials to the defendant, and the fact that the price for the food materials supplied to the defendant is KRW 1,285,400.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,285,40 per annum and damages for delay with 12% per annum from April 2, 2019, following the delivery day of a copy of the instant complaint, the statutory interest rate under the main text of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019 and enforced June 1, 2019) and Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the same Act, as the Plaintiff claims for the amount of KRW 1,285,40 per annum from May 31, 2019 and damages for delay calculated by 12% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The defendant's defense against the defendant's defense of payment is defense that the defendant paid all the price of the goods to the plaintiff.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 7 and witness E and F of this Court, the defendant also has the value of the goods.