1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 28,00,000 to Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and its interest in KRW 28,000 from July 14, 2014 to September 1, 2017.

1. On the basis of facts, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s Do and Miscellaneous Construction Business; the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s Do and Miscellaneous Construction Business; the Selection Party (Appointed Party)’s Do and Miscellaneous Construction Business; the Selection Party E; the Selection Party G is the restaurant operation business; the Selection Party G is the equipment business; the Selection Party H is the electrical installation business; the Plaintiff J is the Plaintiff’s person working as the field agent; the Defendant is the person working as the K Company’s field agent; the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) supplied the goods to K or worked for the period from 20,670,000 won to April 20, 2016; the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s 28,000,000 won for construction work; the Selection Party’s 3,036,000,000 won for the Selection Party’s wages; the Selection Party’s 20,000,000 won for the Selection Party’s 200,400.

2. Determination as to the claims filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) A, Appointed D, E, F, G, H, I, and J

A. The argument is that the defendant actually operated KK and the defendant agreed to pay the delayed payment amount of this case, and the defendant is obliged to pay each of the above amounts.

B. We examine the judgment, and the Defendant substantially operated K in Korea.

Even if there is no assertion or proof that K's corporate personality can be denied, it cannot be recognized that the defendant is liable to pay the delayed payment of this case to the defendant.

In addition, the evidence No. 1 is merely confirming the amount of the delayed payment of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) as the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s on-site agent of KK Company A, E, E, F, G, H, I, and J as its agent, and the Defendant did so.