A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a wholesale and retail business of fishery products under the trade name of “C”.

B. From May 8, 2018 to May 31, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with 39,455,000 won worth (hereinafter “the instant village”).

(c)

The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 6,00,000,000 on May 16, 2018, and KRW 5,720,000 on May 19, 2018, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delayed damages from August 11, 2018, after the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, which the Plaintiff seeks against KRW 11,720,00 (= KRW 6,000,000) and KRW 27,735,000 (= KRW 39,45,000 - KRW 11,720,000).

B. 1) The Defendant’s supply of the instant loan money is not the Plaintiff, but set off against the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against D by asserting that it is not the Plaintiff’s wife D. However, in light of the fact that a transaction was made in the name of “C” that the Plaintiff registered as a business operator, or that the Defendant deposited part of the instant loan money into the Plaintiff’s account, and that the Plaintiff sent a text message demanding the Defendant to pay the remainder over several times from June 2018, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition.

2) The Defendant, in the first instance trial, led to the confession of “the fact that the Defendant was supplied with the instant village,” but at the same time, the evidence submitted by the Defendant to the lower court was mainly the data on transactions conducted around the year 2015.

The mere fact is insufficient to recognize the confession as being contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.