1. The Defendant’s KRW 39,846,40 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from February 16, 2016 to July 28, 2016, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling special sand, stampers, soil, teaching instruments, and strings, and the Defendant runs the business of selling strings with the trade name in Seoul Special Metropolitan City B.

B. The Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 81,580,800 from March 2015 to October 2015 in accordance with the goods supply agreement with the Defendant.

C. The Defendant paid KRW 36,990,400 out of the price of the goods to the Plaintiff, and returned the goods equivalent to KRW 4,744,00 on December 14, 2015, but did not pay KRW 39,846,40 of the remainder of the goods.

On December 14, 2015, the Defendant prepared a letter of performance with the following contents and provided it to the Plaintiff:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant performance assurance”). E.

The Defendant did not return to the Plaintiff after the completion of the instant performance assurance.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, when preparing the instant performance assurance, returned goods to the Plaintiff by February 15, 2016 as to the amount of KRW 39,846,400 payable to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant promised to pay in cash the amount of the remaining goods after returning the goods.

Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant returned the goods to the Plaintiff by February 15, 2016, and the Defendant is liable to pay 39,846,400 won for the goods and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant promised to return 100% of the Plaintiff’s first transaction at the time of the Plaintiff’s first transaction, and the Plaintiff’s employee decided to return the Plaintiff’s online supply business from July 2016 to the Defendant’s online supply business, and the Defendant decided to return it to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff refused to return it, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be satisfied

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s written undertaking of the instant case was returned to February 15, 2016, and the amount of goods not returned until that time is paid in cash.