1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,654,476 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 5, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a corporation whose main purpose is to manufacture and sell various construction materials at 43, 114-gil-ro, Pongyang-si, Puju-si, and the defendant A is an individual who engages in meology construction business with the trade name from 909-4 to D, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-si, Yangyang-si, and the defendant B is an employee working in D.

The Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with Defendant A and supplied goods from May 1, 2012 to September 2012.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 (including serial numbers), and the purport of the entire argument as to the plaintiff's claim against defendant Gap (the main claim) is that defendant Gap paid part of the price during the transaction of goods equivalent to the total amount of KRW 35,654,476 between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, but the defendant Gap denied only KRW 22,00,000,00 and did not pay the remainder of the goods. Thus, the defendant Gap is liable to pay the remainder of the goods to the plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff and Defendant A traded goods from May 2012 to September 2012, in addition to the supply of goods equivalent to KRW 22,00,000,000, around October 2010, and during that period, the fact that Defendant A paid the goods to the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties. The issue of this case is whether there exists a claim for the payment of goods equivalent to KRW 22,00,000,000, around October 2010, and thus, it is viewed as the existence of a claim for the payment of goods.

First, as to whether the Plaintiff supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 22 million to Defendant A around October 2012, according to the records in the Evidence Nos. 4-12 and 7 of the Evidence Nos. 4, Defendant A may be acknowledged as having issued tax invoices with the supply price of KRW 20,00,000 as of October 17, 2010, and the tax amount of KRW 20,000,000 as of KRW 20,000. However, on the other hand, the Plaintiff did not place an order for other transactions between the Defendant, while there is no order for the above transactions, the electronic tax invoice as of October 17, 2010 entered the name of the site.