1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,624,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 4, 2017 to March 5, 2019.

The defendant's prior defense of the merits is not supplied by the plaintiff, but supplied by C, who was an employee of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's prior defense of the lawsuit of this case against the defendant is an unlawful lawsuit against the non-qualified person. However, in the lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party is determined by the plaintiff's own assertion. The issue of whether the defendant is a person responsible for performance, and it is not a matter to be determined as the existence of the standing to be the defendant before the merits. Thus, the defendant's prior defense of the merits is without merit.

The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the merits was that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant several times from July 10, 2017 to October 3, 2017, with a total of KRW 129,734,200, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 97,360,70, out of the total amount of the share of the Plaintiff, KRW 32,373,500 (= KRW 129,734,200 - KRW 97,360,70).

On July 2017, the Plaintiff supplied eggs equivalent to KRW 76,635,600 to the Defendant on July 2017, 2017, and the fact that the column amounting to KRW 1,656,00 was returned to the Defendant on July 7, 2017 is not a dispute between the parties. As such, the total amount of the column amount supplied on July 2017 (i.e., KRW 74,979,600 (=6,635,600 - 1,656,00) remains.

In August 2017, the fact that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a disturbance amounting to KRW 38,816,700 on August 2017 is no dispute between the parties.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied a column equivalent to KRW 42,874,200 in excess of the amount claimed by the Defendant based on the amount higher than the unit price. However, it is difficult to believe that part of the evidence No. 3 was recorded in the evidence No. 6 (including the serial number), and the testimony of the witness D alone.