1. The Defendant shall pay 10 million won to the Plaintiff at the rate of 20% per annum from October 18, 2013 to the date of complete payment.

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 1, Eul's witness Eul's witness Eul's testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings, if the plaintiff and the defendant, in return for partial payment of expenses for the business activities on February 17, 2010, operated the business so that the defendant can deliver street lamps, etc. to the plaintiff on February 17, 2010, after the plaintiff was engaged in the business activities on behalf of the defendant, the defendant arranged to enter into a contract with the plaintiff on February 17, 2010 for the payment of part of expenses for the business activities on behalf of the defendant. Since then, the defendant can be recognized that he delivered street lamps, etc. at the time of Bapopo, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 10 million won and the damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the next day of October 18, 2013.

B. On this issue, the defendant asserts that the person who actually operated the business of the defendant to deliver street lamps at the time of Mapopopos is not the plaintiff but the person who actually operated the business of the defendant, and therefore, the above contract (Evidence No. 1) was made only in the name of the plaintiff, and the defendant paid 100 million won business allowance to B at the request of B after the completion of the business activity of B, so the plaintiff'

However, the statement of Eul evidence No. 1 (B) alone is insufficient to admit the defendant's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.