1. The Defendant’s KRW 57,120,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from September 29, 2012 to January 27, 2015.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the Plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in manufacturing and wholesale business of heat exchangeers, and the Defendant is a juristic person engaged in the manufacturing business of boilers, heat machinery, etc., the Plaintiff supplied equipment parts, etc. to the Defendant, and based on August 13, 2012, it can be acknowledged that the balance of the goods price against the Defendant reaches KRW 73,920,000, and the Plaintiff received KRW 16,800,000 out of the balance of the goods price from the Defendant on September 28, 2012.

Therefore, according to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 57,120,00 won for the remaining goods (i.e., 73,920,000 won - 16,800,000 won) and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 29, 2012 to January 27, 2015, which is the day following the day of service of the payment order in this case, from September 29, 2012, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant did not purchase goods from the plaintiff, and only because "B" was traded with the plaintiff by iceing the defendant's trade name, and thus, the defendant cannot be held responsible for it, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 5 and 7, the plaintiff was entered in the name of the defendant around July 2012; the plaintiff was entered in the name of the remitter at the time of receiving KRW 16,80,000, which is part of the price of the goods on September 29, 2012; the "B" claimed by the defendant can be recognized as the facts of the defendant's representative director C and a person related to the punishment, which is the defendant's representative director. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is not accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.