A. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a standard purchase transaction agreement (hereinafter “each contract of this case”) with the purport that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the remainder after deducting the fee of a certain ratio (22%, local number 23%) out of the sales amount, to the Plaintiff at the end of the following month from the end of the end of the month following the end of the month following the end of the month (hereinafter “each contract of this case”).

B. By December 9, 2015, the amount that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff out of the settlement amount (the amount obtained by deducting the Defendant’s fee from the sales amount) incurred under each of the instant contracts (the sales amount) is KRW 54,788,370 (the amount that the Defendant was paid to the Plaintiff, which was KRW 37,251,159, KRW 17,537,211).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the settlement amount of KRW 54,788,370 under each of the instant contracts and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 1, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of payment, as a copy of the instant complaint.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that, inasmuch as the notification of termination of the lease agreement to the Defendant, the building owner No. 1 of the Doesa, the private equity real estate investment limited company, and the subcontractor, including the Plaintiff, agree to sell the goods directly and pay the fee to the Defendant. As of February 29, 2016, the Defendant’s fee for the sales of the goods of local glass is KRW 33,959,086, the fee should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s settlement amount.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged by the defendant.