1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 42,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 16, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the complex logistics business, and the Defendant is a legal entity that runs the Internet communications sales business.

B. A transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was conducted at the Defendant’s request from February 2, 2014 to January 2015, and the total amount of the transport cost is KRW 307,271,404. The main commission of the transport to the Plaintiff was a delegation of the authority to request the transport of logistics by the Defendant. (ii) A was a consignment of the authority to request the transport of logistics from August 2014 to September 2014 to the Plaintiff. The total amount of the transport cost is KRW 21,502,953.

3) By January 2016, A transferred the transport price to the Plaintiff under the name of green enterprises, C(D), etc. without specifying which company is the transport price. The Plaintiff appropriated the transport price from A for the obligations of the Defendant and B whenever the transport price is deposited, and notified A of the details of appropriation and the balance of each company. 4) Of the transport price deposited by A to the Plaintiff, KRW 19,225,813 out of the transport price deposited by A to the Plaintiff is appropriated for B’s transport price obligation, and the balance of B’s transport price is KRW 2,277,140, and the Defendant’s transport price balance is KRW 42,00,000.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder transport cost of KRW 42,00,000, and damages for delay, except for the transport cost repaid according to the method set by the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserts that the transport cost that A paid to the Plaintiff ought to be appropriated for the repayment of the Defendant’s transport cost obligation, and that the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust.

B. Article 477(1) of the Civil Act provides that if the obligor bears several obligations for the same kind of obligation to the same obligee, the offer of performance cannot be extinguished in full.