1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A shall pay 30,744,800 won and a rate of 15% per annum from April 6, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. 사실관계 [인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 1∽3, 5, 6호증, 을 3, 4호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지 원고는 금속판금 및 금속표면처리업 등을 목적으로 설립된 회사이고, 피고 A은 반도체후레임 제작 및 판매업 등을 목적으로 설립된 피고 주식회사 B(이하 ‘피고 회사’)의 사내이사 겸 개인사업체 C의 대표자이다.

The plaintiff is to manufacture and supply goods in accordance with the order of the defendant A, and the defendant A bears 35 million won as the deposit deposit for the factory located in the member-gu, Ansan-si, which was leased by the defendant A.

On October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant A agreed to treat the above KRW 35 million as the loan to the Plaintiff by Defendant A, and Defendant A returned KRW 15 million among them to the Plaintiff.

From October 17, 2016 to December 12, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied each of the goods equivalent to KRW 29,922,200 to Defendant A, and the goods equivalent to KRW 4,741,00 to the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company paid KRW 4.5 million to the Plaintiff on November 4, 2016.

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, according to the judgment on the cause of the claim, Defendant A is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 20 million (=35 million - KRW 15 million - KRW 15 million) and the amount remaining after deducting KRW 14,036,000, and the amount of KRW 5,141,400, and the amount remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 14,036,000, and the amount of KRW 5,141,400, and KRW 30,744,800, and the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 241,00 (= KRW 4,741,00 - KRW 4.5 million - 4.5 million) and each of the above amounts at a rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Litigation Promotion Act from April 6, 2017 to the date of full payment.

B. Although the plaintiff's assertion as to the defendant A's assertion was asserted to the effect that since the plaintiff paid real estate brokerage fees, rent, and public charges related to the defendant's D factories in Ansan-si, the plaintiff's claim for indemnity exists, and that the above claim for indemnity and the plaintiff's claim against the above defendant are offset, it can be acknowledged as the above defendant's assertion.