1. Defendant B’s KRW 29,182,062 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from December 22, 2015 to April 25, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operates a personal business entity called C, and Defendant B operates a personal business entity as Defendant D, and Defendant Daesan Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company engaged in the press metal-type manufacturing business and automobile parts manufacturing business.

B. On December 4, 2014, Defendant B requested the Plaintiff to make an estimate of the gold-type 4 set (hereinafter “the gold-type”).

Accordingly, on December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B a written estimate of KRW 40,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) with respect to the gold of this case.

The instant goods are the goods that Defendant B re-subcontracted to the Plaintiff upon the Defendant Company’s request for production (the amount of KRW 149,000,000).

C. On December 31, 2014, Defendant B remitted KRW 11,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the down payment for the instant goods.

On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the fact that all the instant goods were manufactured, and requested Defendant B to receive the instant goods and pay the price thereof, but Defendant B refused to accept the instant goods.

E. Defendant B’s refusal to receive the instant goods was in custody of the Plaintiff. However, around February 26, 2015, employees E of the Defendant Company sought to return the instant goods to the Plaintiff and requested the supply of the instant goods, and the said E directly shipped the instant goods to the Plaintiff with Defendant B’s consent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), witness F's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. The gist of the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff did not receive value-added tax of KRW 40,865,00 (=47,150,000 (=40,000), value-added tax of KRW 4,715,00,000), and KRW 11,00,000,00, out of the price when manufacturing and supplying the gold bullion of this case.

Therefore, Defendant B is the party who entered into a contract on the instant goods with the Plaintiff.