The defendant shall pay 30,55,000 won to the plaintiff and 6% per annum from May 1, 2019 to December 2, 2019 and the next day.

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the manufacturing and wholesale business of unsatisfying, and the non-party C (hereinafter “non-party C”) is a company that manufactures and engages in wholesale business.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the non-party company, and sold the clothing subsidiary materials equivalent to USD 34,462.65 in total, including USD 12,285.40 on April 2018, USD 7,472.00 on May 2018, and USD 14,705.25 on April 2018, to the non-party company.

C. Of the goods price under the preceding paragraph, the non-party company did not pay only USD 9,000,000 and did not pay the remainder US$ 25,462.65 until July 2018, which was the due date for payment agreed.

On September 7, 2018, the Defendant agreed to pay USD 25,462.65 to the Plaintiff the price for the goods that the non-party company did not repay to the Plaintiff by the end of April 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including evidence with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the fact that the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remaining amount was acknowledged, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,55,000 calculated in Korean currency equivalent to USD 25,462.65, which was not paid out of the price of the clothing and supplementary materials provided as above, as well as 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 1, 2019 to December 2, 2019, which is the day following the due date for payment of the contract, and damages for delay by 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant asserted that the goods supplied by the non-party company were defective and that the delivery could not be paid the original price agreed upon because the delivery was delayed. However, the defendant's allegation is without merit since the defendant's promise to pay the amount is not different in the circumstance where the repayment was delayed due to the circumstance where the payment was delayed.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion of this case.