1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 34,919,649 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 15, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a company that vicariously performs international multiple transportation business for traders, etc., and the defendant is a company that purchases the original team overseas and processes it overseas and supplies it to the clothing company.

The Plaintiff entered into a transport contract with the Defendant with the introduction of A, and transported all the goods requested by the Defendant nine times from October 2017 to December 2017 by means of air or land transport between three countries.

Although the defendant paid transportation charges from one to three occasions, the defendant did not pay the total transportation charges of 34,919,649 won from four to nine times.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute. According to the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including a branch number if there is a serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the transportation fee of KRW 34,919,649, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 15, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day when a copy of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant.

Although the defendant asserts that he had entered into a contract of carriage with the plaintiff and transported goods, it is not sufficient to recognize that he had paid part of the transportation charge, but it is not sufficient to recognize the fact of the above assertion only with the descriptions of the certificate of subparagraphs 1 through 4.

In addition, since the defendant entered into a contract between the defendant and the seller on the condition that the seller bears the carriage charge, the transportation charge should be claimed to the seller who supplies the goods to the defendant instead of the defendant, but the parties who entered into the contract of carriage between the plaintiff and the plaintiff are only the defendant, and it is not a third party who trades with the

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.