1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,622,534 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from January 1, 2016 to August 21, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the representative of CLLC (C) who is a trade company of the other party.

The defendant is the head of D, which is one of the other company, and the inside director of E, which is the company.

D The representative is the Defendant’s wife F.

B. C Limited Liability Company supplied D and E with other days from May 17, 2011 to November 13, 2012.

The total price of goods was US$ 209,293.99, and US$ 153,602.50 among them was paid.

The price of the unpaid goods is USD 55,691.49.

[Ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute between the parties or the defendant does not clearly dispute

2. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, it is acknowledged that the Defendant agreed to pay USD 55,691.40 to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2015, the price of the goods, around 2014, to the Plaintiff, in full view of the written evidence No. 10 (the document’s authenticity is presumed to have been established as a whole due to the lack of dispute over the tea card, the Defendant’s name, and the signature portion; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay USD 55,691.40 to the plaintiff and delay damages from January 1, 2016, which is the day following the due date.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. At the time the Defendant drafted the instant loan certificate to the Plaintiff, the Defendant stated that USD 5,569.40 equivalent to the limit of 1/10 of the amount of the goods unpaid to the meaning of the guarantee for the payment of the goods, and the Plaintiff subsequently altered the loan certificate to USD 55,69 by 1 on the following 5,569.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff altered the certificate of loan, the assertion of alteration is without merit.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s written loan certificate of this case in which the Defendant himself/herself is the debtor, and the written statement in the loan certificate of this case in which the term of guarantee was not entirely indicated, it is determined that the Defendant traded with the Plaintiff using the name of the wife F and E, and thus, it is deemed that the Defendant traded with the Plaintiff.