1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 78,557,90 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from August 21, 2019 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) is a company that engages in the e-mail manufacturing business, or other gold-type manufacturing business as its business, and the Defendant is a company that engages in automobile parts sales business as its business purpose.

B. From April 24, 2018 to December 28, 2018, Nonparty Company supplied E-type and private display to the Defendant.

(c)

On the other hand, on March 8, 2018, the Daegu District Court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures by 101 meetings of 2018 with respect to the non-party company, and the plaintiff (F) was appointed as the administrator.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is asserting to the following purport and sought a judgment as to the purport of the claim.

From April 24, 2018 to December 28, 2018, Nonparty Company supplied E-type and apology to the Defendant. The price for supply is KRW 234,628,900, as stated in the attached transaction partner ledger.

However, the defendant paid only 156,071,000 won out of the price of delivered goods, and the remaining 78,557,90 won is not paid.

The defendant's assertion that the amount of the price of delivered goods stated in the customer ledger, electronic tax invoice, etc. of the non-party company is excessive differently from the amount of the actual price of delivered goods, or that the non-party company deceives the defendant in the course

B. The Defendant asserts to the following purport and sought the dismissal of the Gu Office of this case.

The fact that the defendant was supplied while trading with the non-party company is recognized.

However, the defendant and the non-party company agreed to receive a preferential supply of the product, but the unit price was subsequently agreed to be discussed, and there is no fact that the defendant and the non-party company did not have reached a settlement agreement on the price

However, the defendant and the non-party company are "non-party company."