A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were merchants engaged in the fishery products distribution business, etc., and the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the total amount of KRW 95,021,300 (hereinafter “the instant goods price”), including self-helping and cooking, on July 11, 2016 and July 13, 2016.

B. On July 18, 2016, the Defendant paid only KRW 47,500,000 out of the price of the instant goods to the Plaintiff, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 47,521,30.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Comprehensively taking account of the allegations and the above facts admitted, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 47,521,300 payable for the goods and delay damages therefrom, unless there are special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant first asserted that the party involved in the transaction with the plaintiff is not the defendant but the defendant's representative director, but the defendant is not the defendant's individual, but the defendant is the defendant's representative director. However, considering the above evidence, Gap's evidence No. 3-1 and No. 2 and the whole purport of argument, the defendant's argument is without merit

Then, the defendant asserts that there was an agreement between the plaintiff, the defendant, and D to accept the defendant's obligation to pay the goods of this case as a discharge, but it is difficult to believe the witness E's testimony as it is and other evidence submitted by the defendant alone are insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement to assume the above duty of debt exemption, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 47,521,300 won for the unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from May 4, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified.