1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 41,439,379 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 10, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the Defendant, and supplied original hairs and hairs equivalent to USD 340,350.50, which were supplied from May 4, 2017 to June 3, 2017 to the customer designated by the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff was paid USD 307,524.50 among the above goods price.

C. On December 2, 2017, the Plaintiff additionally supplied 4,323,021 Won to the Defendant, and around that time, the Plaintiff was paid 32,826 US$32,826 on the remainder of the goods price by the Defendant (i.e., USD 340,350.50 - USD 307,524.50) converted 1,130.70 on May 4, 2017, which is the supply date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 41,439,379 won (=37,116,358 won + USD 32,826 + 1,130.70 won) + 4,323,021 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 10, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the price of the goods, since the Rabcom entered into an agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant’s product suppliers (hereinafter “Mabcom”) to pay the price of the goods on behalf of the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff himself acknowledges the fact that the plaintiff was paid USD 307,524.50 out of USD 340,350,50.50 on the price of originals, etc. supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, from the Mabcom's subsidiary.

However, the above facts alone cannot be deemed to have taken over the defendant's obligation to pay goods, such as original hair, against the plaintiff, in the discharge of liability, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim.