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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the assertion is that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to produce and deliver the direct tools to the Defendant in order to implement the supply contract with Dae-gu Co., Ltd., and paid the Defendant’s direct tools production cost directly to the Defendant’s customer at the Defendant’s request.

Nevertheless, the defendant only produced and supplied only a part of the directized machine that was originally produced and supplied to the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff extended money to the defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 18,655,362, excluding the amount of KRW 7,040,00,000, which the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff paid directly to the Defendant’s business partner and the amount of the Plaintiff’s loans, as the sum of KRW 25,695,362, and damages for delay.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 4-1 through 24, and 5-1 through 22 of the evidence Nos. 4-1 to 5, the Plaintiff sent money or withdrawn cash using the Plaintiff’s dynamic account from April 23, 2011 to July 1, 2011, and the Plaintiff’s agent on October 29, 2015 with the Defendant as the receiver and with the Defendant “the result of the money transaction by consignment for the production and processing of the products to be supplied to his her son has not been resolved until a long time. However, unlike the promise, the Plaintiff’s request was made for resolution through telephone communications with South and North Korea on several occasions without complying therewith and without complying therewith, and the Plaintiff’s request was made to complete payment on Nov. 10, 2015. However, the Plaintiff’s direct statement and evidence can be acknowledged as including the fact that the Plaintiff sent money.