A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, who operates a factory processing for clothes, was requested by the Defendant to process the goods for clothes from November 22, 201 to December 9, 2011. The Plaintiff was not paid KRW 7,727,90 out of the processing fees, and on September 10, 2011, lent KRW 500,00 to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 8,227,90,000 in total, including the processing fees and loans unpaid.

B. The facts that the Plaintiff lent KRW 500,00 to the Defendant on September 10, 201 are without dispute between the parties, and that the Plaintiff did not pay the commission fee of KRW 5,216,90 to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 1,300 x KRW 4,013). As such, the Defendant also has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the commission fee of KRW 5,716,90 (i.e., KRW 5,216,90) and damages for delay.

2. The plaintiff's claim on 2. The plaintiff's claim on 2. The plaintiff's claim on 2. The plaintiff's claim on 2. The plaintiff's claim on 2. The plaintiff's claim on 2. The plaintiff's claim on 2.

A. First of all, the Defendant asserted that, without the Defendant’s instruction, the Plaintiff arbitrarily claimed for processing fees for high seas from the Defendant, and sold the raw materials or processed goods in mind belonging to the raw materials actually used, and the Defendant did not receive any money that the Defendant intended to have been engaged in the Plaintiff’s business for the Plaintiff, and that the amount would not be paid to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant cannot pay the commission fees to the Plaintiff is not reasonable. Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant also remains after the plaintiff was used.