The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 35,38,320 as well as 6% per annum from December 7, 2016 to December 11, 2019, and the next day.

1. From August 19, 2016 to December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff sold goods, such as strong language and automatic text, equivalent to KRW 124,435,520, a total of KRW 124,435,520, to the Defendant is not a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff has received reimbursement of KRW 89,047,20, out of the total amount of KRW 124,435,520.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 35,38,320 (i.e., KRW 124,435,520 - KRW 89,047,20) and for this, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from December 7, 2016 to December 11, 2019, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case from the next day to the date of full payment, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. On May 2016, the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant registered D, a child of the Plaintiff’s representative director C, as the Defendant’s employee and paid KRW 3,00,000 per month as D wage, thereby deducting the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s wage from the Plaintiff’s price for the above goods against the Defendant. Since the Defendant paid KRW 33,00,000,000 as benefits to D from May 2016 to March 2017, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of KRW 33,00,000 out of the Plaintiff’s goods amount was extinguished by mutual aid.

The argument is asserted.

The fact that the Defendant paid D 3,00,000 won as wages to D from May 2, 2016 to March 2017 is not disputed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but even upon examining all the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to deduct the said money from the claim for the price of the goods sought by the Plaintiff in this case (the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assertion itself also agreed to deduct the price of the goods that have not yet occurred on May 2016, the beginning of the supply of the goods, and C did not have the status of the Plaintiff’s representative director around May 2016, and therefore, it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s assertion as it is.