1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,790,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from November 2, 2016 to July 20, 2018.

1. The parties' assertion on the cause of the claim

A. On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with KRW 36,036,00,000, solar light 208. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 36,036,00 to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s husband C entered into a contract with the Defendant’s representative director to supply solar energy self-support village promotion committee (hereinafter “E Energy Self-Support Village”) and the Committee for Promotion of Energy Self-Support Village in Fullju (hereinafter “F Energy Self-Support Village”) with solar energy 33 sets (132) equivalent to 23,958,000 won under the name of the Plaintiff’s representative director, while working as the Defendant’s business team leader.

However, C was only provided with solar energy-self-support villages in the two areas of the above two areas of the energy-support villages by proposing that the solar light service provider, which should supply the above energy-self-support villages, refuses to supply the solar light fastens to the Defendant, so C would be supplied through the “G” as its representative.

2. In light of the following facts, the judgment on the cause of the claim is examined: Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4 to 6 (including various numbers), and the overall purport of the pleadings, and the number of solar light valves to be supplied to the energy self-support village by the defendant, and the fact that the defendant delegated C with the authority to conclude the solar light supply contract with the defendant for the solar lighter and solar light boiler supply contract with the energy self-support village, etc., the defendant appears to have delegated C with the authority to consider the number of solar light trusses supplied through G as 132, such as the number of solar sun light cycles to be supplied to the energy self-support village, and to have delegated C with the authority to determine the unit price of supply with G. Thus, the defendant appears to have delegated the plaintiff with the authority to determine the unit price of supply with G.