1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,184,520 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from July 22, 2017 to May 10, 2018, and the following.

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim is that the Defendant was supplied with goods necessary for the manufacture of steel structure, such as 36,502,972 won (including value-added tax; hereinafter “value-added tax”) from C in the name of the joint stock company B (hereinafter “B”) from March 16, 2017 to March 31, 2017. The Plaintiff entered into a claim transfer agreement with C as to KRW 13,184,520 of the remainder of the goods price of this case, and C transferred the above notice on July 6, 2017, and at least delivered the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim to the Defendant on July 21, 2017, or upon considering the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties concerned; or (b) evidence as stated in subparagraphs 1 through 4; and (c) the purport of the entire testimony as a whole.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 13,184,520 as above and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from July 22, 2017 to May 10, 2018, which is the date the notice of assignment of claims reaches the Defendant, to the Defendant, to the extent of the obligation performed by the Defendant, and 15% 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. As to the Defendant’s defense and judgment, the Defendant’s defenses to the effect that, at the request of B C, the Defendant remitted KRW 14,50,000 to C-friendly D on April 21, 2017, thereby repaying all the price of the instant goods.

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the testimony of the witness C, the facts that B remitted KRW 14,500,000 to D’s account on April 21, 2017 can be acknowledged. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the said KRW 14,50,000 was paid for the repayment of the price of the instant goods, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, A.