1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,212,00 and interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from February 28, 2012 to the day of complete payment.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap's statements and arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's 1, 2, and 4 (main document, the defendant's seal affixed to this order is not the defendant's corporate seal impression. However, according to the result of this court's seal appraisal, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established since the following stamp image attached to the defendant's name under this order is recognized by the defendant's corporate seal impression. Although the defendant's aforementioned assertion contains a defense of misappropriation, this defense also has no ground as seen below), 6, 7 evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 7 (including each number), and the whole purport of oral argument, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for new construction of a new construction corporation of a new construction corporation of a new construction corporation of a new construction corporation of a corporation of a corporation of the Republic of South and North Sea (hereinafter referred to as the "corporation of this case") in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "corporation of this case") in a concrete plant of this case, and supplied goods to the defendant at the site.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,212,00 for the price of goods and delay damages therefor.

2. On the part of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that, on the other hand, the so-called "project owner" did not have any obligation to pay the price for ready-mixed to the plaintiff, since the so-called "Saun" fishery partnership corporation, which is the project owner, paid the cost of ready-mixed to the plaintiff.

However, only the descriptions of Eul Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number) agreed with the defendant to bear all of the price of ready-mixeds related to the construction of this case.

In addition, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff paid the price in full to the Plaintiff, and even if so, the content of the Defendant’s assertion between the increased fisheries partnership and the Defendant.