The plaintiff is engaged in the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of "C", and the defendant is engaged in salting, salting, and wholesale business with the trade name of "D."

B. The Defendant received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff in the form of advance payment or advance payment in order to raise salt funds.

C. On January 19, 2014, the Plaintiff arranged the Plaintiff’s account sales amounting to KRW 50 million on the account of advance payment with the Defendant as KRW 50 million, and agreed to deduct the Plaintiff’s purchase of goods from the Defendant by 30%, and pay only the remainder after deducting the value from the Defendant as the price for the goods.

Upon receipt of goods from the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the goods after deducting the amount under the above agreement. As of April 9, 2015, the Defendant’s payment for the remainder of the goods is KRW 47,267,750.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant is obligated to pay 47,267,750 won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion: (a) provided the Plaintiff with technical cooperation so that the Defendant may export goods to China; and (b) the Plaintiff agreed to pay rebates of KRW 100 or KRW 150 per kg to the Plaintiff; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant claimed that the amount equivalent to the rebates to be paid should be deducted or offset. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the agreement as alleged by the Defendant, and the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

C. Accordingly, according to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant's KRW 47,267,750 and this case's lawsuit is against the plaintiff.