1. The Defendant’s KRW 87,741,90 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from March 1, 2015 to June 8, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From May 12, 2014 to August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) processed and supplied electronic parts worth KRW 182,741,90 in total to the Defendant; (b) received each payment of KRW 40,000,000 from the Defendant on August 19, 2014; and (c) received each payment of KRW 50,000,000,000 from the Defendant.

B. On January 5, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a repayment plan stating that the Plaintiff would settle KRW 45,000,000 on January 30, 2015 and KRW 47,741,90 on February 27, 2015, but only paid KRW 5,00,000 on January 9, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 87,741,900 won for the unpaid goods (i.e., KRW 182,741,90, KRW 95,000 - KRW 95,000), as sought by the plaintiff, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from March 1, 2015 to June 8, 2015, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff issued a tax invoice by designating Eski System Business as the supplier, and the defendant is not the party to the transaction, and thus the defendant cannot claim the payment of the goods.

The who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da68207, Apr. 10, 2014). According to the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 9, it is recognized that both the plaintiff and the defendant have been aware and traded as a party to the contract, and only it appears that a tax invoice for the Eski System as a supplier was issued at the defendant’s request.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the defendant is not a contracting party is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.