1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,092,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 9, 2008 to December 23, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a company that manufactures automobile parts and ship parts, and the defendant was engaged in trade business with the trade name B.

B. On July 23, 2008, the Plaintiff requested a gold supply from the Defendant, and supplied the Defendant a gold penalty equivalent to KRW 2,528,000, respectively, and the amount of gold penalty equivalent to KRW 26,564,000 on August 26, 10 of the same year.

C. On September 29, 2008, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 6,000,000 out of the above penalty amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Unless there are special circumstances regarding the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 33,092,00 (26,564,000 won - 6,000 won - 600,000 won which is the unpaid amount) out of the monetary amount of the monetary amount and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from October 9, 2008 to December 23, 2014, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, which is the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the plaintiff agreed to deduct the above gold price from the good faith price, but the evidence Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 is merely non-related materials to the plaintiff and it is insufficient to recognize it, and otherwise agreed with the plaintiff.

There is no reason to deem that the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied parts with the Defendant’s good offices, and that there was no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff gained any benefit therefrom.

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