1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: KRW 33,257,050, and KRW 6% per annum from June 4, 2014 to January 21, 2015, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The parties’ related Plaintiff is a merchant engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetic resin with the trade name of “F.” Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a corporation established on December 14, 201 for the purpose of the inurning manufacturing business, LED lighting sales business, brokerage business, purchase agency business, etc., and Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is a corporation established on June 22, 201 for the purpose of the inurning manufacturing business, LED lighting sales business, brokerage business, purchase agency business, etc.

Defendant E is an internal director who is the representative of Defendant B, and Defendant D is the spouse of Defendant E and in-house director who is the representative of Defendant C.

B. From May 2012 to April 2013, the Plaintiff and Defendant B supplied Defendant B with the “family bridge”, which is the synthetic resin necessary for the manufacture of a total of KRW 117,112,050 for infants’ play.

The Plaintiff received KRW 83,855,000 among the goods supplied as above, but did not receive the remainder of KRW 33,257,050.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 3-1, No. 2, Evidence No. 4-1 to No. 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the claim against Defendant B with respect to the primary claim, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,257,050 for the unpaid goods and the amount of damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 4, 2014, which is the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served on Defendant B, until January 21, 2015, which is the day when this decision is rendered, to the day when the dispute is reasonable as to the existence and scope of the obligation of this case, and from the following day until the day when the payment is fully made.

Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff sought damages for delay from May 1, 2013, the date following the last tax invoice issued, the Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is accepted, there is no specific evidence that the payment period for the goods is the last issue date of the tax invoice.