A. On February 12, 2013, the Plaintiff, as a business entity dealing with automobile parts in Turkey, sent USD 22,917.68 to the Defendant with the trade name “B” to import various automobile parts produced in modern and Russian fields, etc. from the Defendant using the trade name “B” in Korea.

B. On May 15, 2013, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff the first commercial invoice indicating the list of goods and the US dollars 76,352.76. According to the said commercial invoice, the Plaintiff sent the amount of USD 22,917.68 to the Defendant on May 31, 2013 less the above USD 22,917.68 (= USD 76,352.76 - USD 22,97.68).

C. On June 10, 2013, the Defendant sent the second commercial invoice to the Plaintiff stating USD 64,696.26 in U.S. dollars. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred USD 64,696.26 in U.S. dollars to the Defendant on June 25, 2013.

On August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “the goods supplied by the first commercial invoice amounting to USD 53,946.36 in U.S. dollars, and the goods amounting to USD 22,406.40 in U.S. dollars,” and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on August 16, 2013, after discussing the Defendant’s shortage with the supplier, that “the Defendant’s supplier was unable to find out the insufficient goods in the warehouse, and whether there was any son’s accident, but the Plaintiff decided to provide substitute goods to solve this problem. The second container was confirmed. The second container was to provide the goods without any additional expense.” The Defendant and the Supplier notified the Defendant to each of 50% burden on the Defendant and the Supplier.”

E. On August 21, 2013, the Plaintiff’s goods supplied by the second commercial invoice to the Defendant are not sufficient and the goods amounting to USD 38,708.73 in U.S. dollars, the first 22,406.40, the second 38,708.73.