1. Defendant B’s KRW 60,840,00 and annual interest thereon from February 28, 2013 to June 12, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an import-distributor who imports and sells sacle and glass on the Internet while operating a stock company F in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E 801.

B. In around 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B, the father, to supply the goods that the said Defendant would have to receive, such as the rade, imported by Defendant C, and sold the goods supplied by the said Defendant via the Internet, etc.

C. From March 16, 2011 to August 8, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 259,759,484 to the Defendant for import oral test and pre-printed price. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 199,380,000 (hereinafter “goods supplied”).

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 6 (including additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap witness Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleading is that the plaintiff asserted that the contract for the supply of goods such as Gap evidence Nos. 1 was concluded with the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul alleged that Gap evidence Nos. 1 was forged. In light of the circumstances such as the seal affixed to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and the address indicated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 is different from the name of the above defendant's resident registration, Gap evidence Nos. 6-3 through 11, 14, 15, and 7, evidence Nos. 1 is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of Gap evidence Nos. 1, and the result of appraisal by Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 6 (including additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), but it is acknowledged that the above defendant himself received the goods supply contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff's claim that the goods corresponding to Gap's price was supplied to the goods.