1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,314,350 as well as 20% per annum from August 30, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On February 2011, the Defendant established a business registration under the trade name “C”.

On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff made a home shopping contract (hereinafter “instant business contract”) with D, the Defendant’s husband, “B and B in 2014, and B and B, and B and B, with the Defendant’s home shopping products, the Defendant produces goods and sells them through home shopping by planning the goods (Article 1 of the contract). Fees are 5% (including value added tax) of the selling price of the goods. The settlement of fees is made at the end of the following month after completing the sales of the goods at the end of the month, and the payment (Article 3 of the contract) is made at the end of the following month. At the time, D, the contractual parties (Evidence 1) was written, and signed and sealed by the Defendant.

From May 9, 2014 to July 8, 2014, the product produced by the Defendant was sold through home shopping broadcasts on seven occasions. The product sales price agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was 69,000 won for a single broadcast, 59,000 won for a second broadcast, and 39,000 won for the remainder of broadcasts.

By July 8, 2014, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 25 million to the sales commission, and the sales commission currently not paid is KRW 23,314,350.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 10 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sales commission 23,314,350 won unpaid and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 30, 2014 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion D leased the name from the Defendant to enter into the instant business contract in the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff also knew that the actual operator of “C” is D and the Defendant is a mere nominal lender.