1. Defendant B’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 22, 2015 to February 3, 2016, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as Nonparty D and the partnership business, engaged in scrap metal retail business with the trade name of Nonparty D, and Defendant B is an individual entrepreneur who engages in steel structure and material manufacturing business with the trade name of Defendant F and G.

B. On December 20, 2005, the Plaintiff, D, and Defendant B paid to Defendant B the contract deposit of KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract deposit”), and agreed to receive the scrap metal from Defendant B and pay the scrap metal to Defendant B as a deduction from the instant contract deposit, and the Plaintiff and Nonparty D paid KRW 30,000,000 to Defendant B.

C. While resolving the partnership relationship around November 201, the Plaintiff and D renounced the Plaintiff’s right to the instant deposit, D renounced the right to the instant deposit, and Defendant B did not provide the Plaintiff with the scrap metal after July 1, 2012.

Meanwhile, Defendant B and Defendant C are married couple.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff asserted that by July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,987,700 of the scrap metal with the remainder of the instant deposit to Defendant B, and that, as it is, the scrap metal transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B was terminated, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 31,987,700 and the delay damages.

B. Determination A) In light of the judgment on the cause of the claim, first of all, in the case of Party B’s documentary evidence transaction account books that the Plaintiff seems to have paid KRW 1,987,700 to Defendant B, the fact that the money recorded in the account book was transferred from the date recorded in the account book to Defendant B or Defendant C’s account from the Plaintiff’s account in light of the respective entry (including each number) in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, although it is acknowledged that the money recorded in the account book was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant B or Defendant C’s account, the Plaintiff’s entry in the evidence No. 4, which appears to have been prepared again by the Plaintiff in light of the respective entry in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5 (including each number).