1. The Defendant’s KRW 111,340,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from August 18, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an employee of the Korea Fishery Products Wholesale and Retail Trade Company D (hereinafter “D”) in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and the Defendant is a person who sells fishery products under the trade name of “E.”

B. From August 30, 2011 to December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with an aggregate of KRW 476,301,060 for fishery products (see attached Table), and paid the amount of goods not received from the Defendant as a substitute to D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff, while taking charge of the transaction between D and the Defendant, has received money from the Defendant in cash or in the name of the Defendant’s fatherF to deposit account. The Defendant paid the unpaid amount to D. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount of money that was not paid by the Defendant was KRW 11,340,000, out of the amount of money paid in subrogation, is KRW 111,340,000.

The defendant asserts that the amount payable to the plaintiff out of the above price of goods is about KRW 20 million to KRW 30 million, and that the amount for which the plaintiff is entitled to pay is not recognized as the payment in cash at the time of delivery.

B. The facts that the defendant supplied fishery products worth KRW 476,301,060 from D are as shown in the above basic facts. The defendant paid the above product price to the plaintiff who is not D but the employee in charge. The fact that the plaintiff paid the product price that the defendant did not pay to the plaintiff on behalf of D is not dispute between the parties, or that the plaintiff paid the product price that was not paid to the plaintiff on behalf of D can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the argument in the statement No. 3, and there is no counter-proof.

In addition, there is no dispute over the defendant's liability to compensate for the portion of the above goods which the defendant did not pay.

Therefore, the issues of the instant case are as follows: (a) the Defendant, either to the Plaintiff or to the Plaintiff.