1. The counterclaim Defendant shall pay 3,860,000 won to the counterclaim Plaintiff and 15% per annum from September 13, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. In the first instance trial, the counterclaim Defendant claimed damages equivalent to the value of the transport object on the premise that the counterclaim violated the cargo transport contract concluded with the counterclaim Defendant. However, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the counterclaim Defendant’s claim. The counterclaim Defendant appealeded against the first instance trial judgment, which was the first instance court’s appeal, but withdrawn the principal lawsuit on October 26, 2017, which was the first instance court’s proceeding after the counterclaim was filed by the counterclaim, and the principal lawsuit was concluded by the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and the first instance court’s judgment became null and void, and thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the counterclaim claim filed by the counterclaim.

2.The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties, or withdraw Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 12 (including each number), but the evidence is submitted at the principal office.

each entry or video of the court may be recognized respectively by integrating the purpose of the whole oral proceedings.

Counterclaim Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who directly drives a truck and carries on cargo transport business, and the counterclaim Defendant is a manufacturer of various households.

B. On December 21, 2015, the Lessee entered into a cargo transport contract with the counterclaim Defendant with the transport rate of KRW 260,000 as to each of the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant household”) as “2,60,000,” “Insan-gun C,” “Insan-gun C,” and the arrival time as “Aam on December 22, 2015” (hereinafter “instant transport contract”).

C. On December 21, 2015, the Counterclaim Plaintiff: (a) loaded the instant household into D Trucks; (b) searched “E store,” which is the place of destination where a delivery officer on the part of the Counterclaim Defendant (hereinafter “Counter-Defendant”) informed by the Counterclaim Defendant (hereinafter “Counter-Defendant”); (c) however, the Plaintiff searched the “E store,” which is the place of destination.