A. On May 15, 2013, the Defendant (former Plastic Co., Ltd.: Hyundai Plastic Co., Ltd.) entered into an agency contract with the effect that B will collect, store, classify, deliver, etc. selective cargo and pay agency fees, etc. (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) with the name of the agent as “D agency”.

B. On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract between the Defendant and the Defendant’s agent and B with the terms of the contract from May 8, 2014 to May 7, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Defendant entered into a contract with the effect that the Defendant performs transportation duties following the Plaintiff’s entrustment (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. On January 16, 2015 and January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited a total of KRW 14,500,000,000, out of the transport charges of December 14, 2014 of the instant transport contract, to B’s “D agency for On-site Transfer” (hereinafter “instant account”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim claim were satisfied by depositing the transport charges for December 2014 into the instant account designated by B, and that the principal lawsuit did not have any obligation of KRW 14,807,200, the transport charges for December 2014 under the instant contract.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the payment of the above transportation charge to the account of this case in accordance with the contract of carriage of this case is not effective, and that the payment of the above transportation charge to the account of this case is not effective.

B. We also examine the main claim and counterclaim.

According to the statement of Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff is entitled to the contract of this case Article 7 (2).