1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,040,953 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 1, 2016 to November 8, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a bill of lading on November 7, 2015, and transported the bus terminal-related parts (hereinafter “instant cargo”) manufactured by the Defendant under the order of the Korea Smart Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Personal Card”) to Malaysia through aviation or maritime areas.

B. The contract of carriage of the instant cargo was concluded as a condition for the payment of all the costs from the carriage to the customs clearance by the consignee, and the smart card is indicated as a consignor in the documents, such as air carrier, etc. prepared in relation to the said carriage.

C. Meanwhile, the above aviation and maritime transportation costs are KRW 5,031,157, and customs clearance costs, such as customs duties and value added tax on the instant cargo paid by the Plaintiff to the customs office of Malaysia on behalf of the transportation truster, including the instant cargo, are KRW 19,009,796.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant transportation costs, etc.” 24,040,953 won in total of the above transportation costs and customs clearance costs. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 5 evidence (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion (1) The Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with the transportation of the instant cargo. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the transportation cost of the instant cargo.

(2) The owner and the consignee of the freight of this case are smart cards, and the defendant is only the agent of the smart card or the broker of the freight of this case.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the parties to the instant cargo transport contract, who are parties to the instant cargo transport contract, entrusted the transportation of the said cargo to the Plaintiff, in consideration of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

Therefore, as the Defendant seeks, KRW 24,040,953, including the instant transportation cost, and the Plaintiff’s duplicate of the instant complaint from January 1, 2016, as sought by the Plaintiff.