1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

The Plaintiff has been engaged in transactions by continuously supplying goods from around September 2014 to around September 2017 and settling the price.

B. On July 25, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the outstanding amount (Ji Government District Court Decision 2018 Ghana208058), and confirmed that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 9,654,480 and delay damages therefor,” which read that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 9,654,480 and delay damages.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”); 2. Claim and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts to the effect that compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of the instant case is unfair, on the grounds that the amount receivable against the Defendant as of September 29, 2017 remains at KRW 3,025,440, based on the statement in the transaction statement submitted as Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

B. However, according to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (the head of the trading office and the details of deposits) with the Plaintiff, the goods of KRW 32,353,200, which were the last transaction date of September 29, 2017, were supplied (tax amount of KRW 3,235,320), and KRW 25,934,040, out of the payment, were paid and the outstanding amount of KRW 9,654,480 remains.

On the other hand, although the Plaintiff received the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 from the Defendant’s business relationship with the Defendant, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the above transaction specifications was prepared by the Defendant or the person duly delegated by the Defendant, and therefore, the amount of the outstanding amount cannot be recognized.

In addition, the plaintiff did not submit any data despite the opportunity to point out how the data submitted by the defendant was specifically wrong on the ground of his/her detailed details of transactions or deposit details.

C. Accordingly, the decision on the instant performance recommendation that ordered the Plaintiff to pay the outstanding amount and damages for delay thereof is justifiable.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim.