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

A. On July 31, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sold one of the computer numberers (hereinafter “instant machinery”) to the Defendant for KRW 25,000,000,000. The Defendant used the instant machinery, and the Defendant paid KRW 1,00,000 each month from October 30, 2009 to October 30, 201, with the payment of KRW 50,000 each month from October 30, 201.

Since the Defendant paid only KRW 6,00,000 out of the above payment until March 2010, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 28,510,000 after deducting the Plaintiff’s unpaid debts of KRW 19,000 from KRW 12,50,000 and the unpaid debts of KRW 2,990,00 for the Defendant.

B. 1) Comprehensively taking account of the entries in Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, C may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was awarded a bid of KRW 20,105,000 in the public sale procedure on July 17, 2009. The Plaintiff sold the instant machinery to the Defendant around July 2009. The Defendant was supplied with the instant machinery by delivery from the Plaintiff at that time, and the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 6,000,000 to the Plaintiff by March 2010 does not conflict between the parties. 2) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff sold the instant machinery to the Defendant and agreed to receive the payment in installments, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

However, since the Defendant purchased the instant machinery from the Plaintiff in KRW 20,105,00,00, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 14,105,000 (20,105,000 - 6,000,000) and damages for delay.

3) Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant agreed to pay 500,000 won per month as rent in addition to the instant mechanical cost, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 4)