1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 68,349,040 as well as the interest rate from October 12, 2018 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a vessel vessel processing business under the trade name of “E,” and the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a corporation that operates an automated machine manufacturing business.

B. From April 23, 2018, Defendant D was registered as a representative director of the Defendant Company as of April 23, 2018, and the Defendant C was registered as a representative director of the Defendant Company as of that date, and two persons are both married couple.

C. Around April 2017, Defendant Company awarded a contract to the Plaintiff, among the entire charging work that was ordered by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). / [The grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff invested human resources pursuant to the instant contract, and the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 275,468,00 on June 156, 2017, and KRW 275,004,00 on July 11, 2017, and KRW 278,000 on the total of KRW 275,468,00,00 on the part of the Defendant. Of them, the Plaintiff’s claim for the processing expenses remains in existence on July 25, 2017, and on December 34, 2017, KRW 279,740 on December 34, 2017, KRW 102,839,220 on December 26, 2017, and paid KRW 207,118,960 on the part of the Defendant.

According to the above facts, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 68,349,040 won for processing costs and delay damages.

B. On December 2017, the Defendant Company asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for the cost of processing the Defendant Company’s bonds is unreasonable, since the Defendant Company, the creditors of the Defendant Company, including the Plaintiff, G, H, and I (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”), prepared a written agreement by granting a written agreement so that the creditors of the Defendant Company may directly obtain the Defendant Company’s claims against the Nonparty Company.

According to the evidence Nos. 5-3, 16-1 and 2, the defendant company, including the non-party company, the plaintiff, and the defendant company on December 9, 2017.