1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,808,80 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from September 3, 2016 to November 21, 2017, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) entered into an agency contract with the non-party company (hereinafter “instant store”); and (b) entered into a sales contract with the non-party company, which provides that the non-party company shall be supplied with a trademark “E” and receive fees therefor (hereinafter “instant agency contract”); and (c) paid KRW 5 million as a security deposit.

B. Under the instant agency contract, the Defendant terminated the instant agency contract on September 4, 2013, on the ground that the non-party company had suffered financial loss, while selling the clothing 1,484 (the garment 209,04,000 won, hereinafter “instant clothing”).

(C) As to the termination of the instant agency contract, the Defendant asserted that the confession from the preparatory document dated April 18, 2017 to the legal brief dated August 21, 2017 is different from the facts, and that the confession is revoked due to mistake, but there is no evidence to support this).

On April 7, 2015, Nonparty Company transferred to the Plaintiff the right to claim the sale price claim of the instant clothes under the instant agency contract or the right to claim the return of the instant clothes upon the cancellation and termination of the instant agency contract (hereinafter “transfer of the instant clothing”). On the same day, Nonparty sent a content-certified mail stating the assignment of the instant clothing to the Defendant, and reached the Defendant around that time.

The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the instant clothes based on the assignment of the instant claim, but the Defendant refused to do so, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking 25% of the value of the instant clothes as compensation for damages.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts recognized in 11. Paragraph 1. of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant terminated the instant agency contract, and thus, was sold or entrusted by the Nonparty Company.