1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,984,99 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 17, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a company that operates a security leading business in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 10-ro 27, and the defendant is a company that develops and sells the security program called "C" in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On September 23, 2014, the Defendant supplied C Program developed by the Defendant to the Korea Telecommunications Research Institute in Daejeon through the Plaintiff’s business activities.

C. The above value of the supplied goods is KRW 111,804,545 (excluding value-added tax), and in this regard, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million in total, as sales commission, KRW 20 million on November 19, 2014, KRW 10 million on December 29, 2014, KRW 120 million on January 12, 2015, KRW 50 million on March 3, 2015, and KRW 50 million on April 30, 2015.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the argument is 1) The defendant is obligated to pay 20,984,999 won in balance of the business fees to the plaintiff, since the business fees are set at KRW 70,984,999 between the plaintiff's employee's assertion and the defendant's employee or the defendant's grant of authority. The defendant's argument D is not the defendant's employee, but does not have the authority to set the business fees.

B. Determination 1) There is no evidence that the Defendant is an employee of the Defendant. 2) However, in full view of the fact that D received a business license for selling the Defendant’s product from the Defendant Company and used the name of the Defendant’s vice president after receiving the office space and e-mail account from the Defendant Company (Evidence A16), the head of the management support team team E of the Defendant Company’s management support team dispatch of e-mail to the Plaintiff on October 30, 2014, which requested the Plaintiff to issue a tax invoice for KRW 70,985,000 (Evidence A3, etc.), the fact that the Defendant granted the Plaintiff the authority to determine the Plaintiff’s business license fees, and there is no counter-proof.

3 even if the defendant did not grant D the authority to determine the operating fee.