1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. From December 30, 2014 to February 14, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff transported wrusium, wrusium, etc. from C to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request on 26 occasions. The Defendant has not yet paid KRW 30,046,000 out of the transport cost.

The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the above transportation charges in accordance with the agreement with the plaintiff or Article 141 of the Commercial Act.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim was transported from C to March 5, 2015, from September 28, 2014 to March 5, 2015, to the Defendant a delivery of 65,321,000 won, such as citrus, Hanums, etc., to the Defendant, without dispute between the parties, or by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the items in the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2-2.

On the other hand, the plaintiff has been paid KRW 41,765,00 out of the transport price.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 141 of the Commercial Act, the defendant who receives cargo is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above transportation cost of KRW 23,556,00 ( KRW 65,321,00-41,765,00) pursuant to Article 141 of the Commercial Act.

(1) Notwithstanding the above provisions of the Commercial Act, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant alleged to the effect that, upon paying the transport price to C, the Defendant paid it to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed not to bear the above obligation against the Plaintiff, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that, in addition to the foregoing acknowledged by the Plaintiff, even from December 29, 2015 to February 14, 2016, the transport price for walscru and Han-in, etc. to the Defendant from C to the Defendant at a level equivalent to KRW 6,490,00,00, the transport price for walscru and Han-in, etc. is not sufficient to recognize the above assertion. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that exceeds the aforementioned scope is without merit, since the walrue’s assertion

B. The judgment of the defendant regarding the defendant's defense shall be made by the defendant for the above transportation.