A. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to provide the Defendant with furniture, etc., and received KRW 93,500,000 (including value-added tax).

Although the Plaintiff supplied all his households, etc., it does not receive KRW 34,500,000,000. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price for the above goods and delay damages.

B. The Defendant only entered into a contract with the Defendant “B” and did not enter into or receive a supply contract with the Plaintiff.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments as to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 4, and 2-1 of the evidence No. 1-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant prepared a contract under which he/she would have to pay a total of KRW 93,500,000 to the Plaintiff as the price for the supply of the household within the Jeju-dong store from ASEAN Co., Ltd. around February 3, 2015. Under the above contract, the defendant stated that he/she will pay the Plaintiff a balance of KRW 44,50,000 on March 27, 2015. The Plaintiff changed its trade name from “A Co., Ltd. A” to the current trade name on March 13, 2015. According to the fact that the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice corresponding to the price for the goods to the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff concluded a supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and completed the implementation thereof.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff (as requested by the plaintiff) the remaining amount of KRW 34,50,000 and damages for delay calculated by adding a rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act, which the plaintiff seeks from March 28, 2015 to the day of full payment after the date of payment under the above contract, to the day of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.