1. Defendant A’s KRW 501,950 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 1, 2016 to September 12, 2018.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the manufacture and wholesale business of polyscal film, such as salking films for vehicles, supplied salking films for vehicles from 2008 to 2015 to the Defendant Salnato Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Salnato”).

However, as of December 31, 2015, 178,648,300 won is not paid among the amounts of sking films and goods for the above vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant Swealan has the obligation to pay to the plaintiff the price of the goods that was paid to the plaintiff 178,648,300 won and damages for delay.

The plaintiff supplied the scam film to the defendant for about 10 years before around 10 years, and the defendant A did not pay 234,171,000 won out of the scaming film goods for vehicles as of December 31, 2015.

Therefore, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 234,171,000 for the amount of the unpaid goods and damages for delay.

Judgment

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding up the purpose of the entire pleadings to the testimony of Gap 1, 2, 4-31, 39-50 (including paper numbers), witness B, C, and D, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the balance of the price of the goods to the defendant Shanto reaches KRW 178,648,30, and that the balance of the price of the goods to the defendant Gap reaches KRW 234,171,000, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff, while supplying a string film to the Defendants, prepared and arranged the details of transactions with the “Director of the Customer of the Foreign Sales Proceeds” and the “Director of the Customer of the Advance Sales Proceeds,” and sought the payment of the goods unpaid to the Defendants on the basis of the aforementioned Director of the

However, the president of each of the above business partners is unilaterally prepared by the plaintiff without confirmation of the defendants.

Rather, the phrase “masts” submitted by the Defendants, alleging that the details of transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant were organized, was Nos. 4, 7-10, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 29, 31, 39-42, 44, 45, and 45.