1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,770,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from May 16, 2018 to February 22, 2019.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff from March 27, 2018, based on the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including virtual numbers) as to the cause of the claim.

4. Until May 18, 200, the Defendant provided D TGB and nuclear fuel handling area parts necessary for the supply at the Defendant’s request, and the amount receivable for the purchase price of goods was KRW 37,770,000, and the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff KRW 37,770,000 to the Plaintiff by May 15, 2018, respectively.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 37,770,000 won of the outstanding amount and 6% interest per annum under the Commercial Act from May 16, 2018 to February 22, 2019, the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and 12% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. On June 2017, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant may refuse payment of the outstanding amount, even though the Defendant, for the payment of the outstanding amount, transferred to the Plaintiff the claim held against the Korea Aquatic Power Co., Ltd., but waived the acquisition of the claim due to the Plaintiff’s circumstances, and the said outstanding amount, including the price of the goods already paid, was not issued a tax invoice.

However, in the case of the assignment of claims for the payment of the outstanding amount, unless the plaintiff actually paid the outstanding amount due to the payment of the transferred amount, the above argument by the defendant is without merit, and according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, it can be acknowledged that the defendant agreed to issue the tax invoice if the payment of the price of the goods is fully paid, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the payment of the price of the goods and the issuance of the tax invoice are

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.