1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 43,780,600 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 23, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim is that the plaintiff was supplied by E Co., Ltd. with the household appliances and supplied them to the defendant who performed the model cargo. The defendant supplied the household electrical appliances to five model cargos (hereinafter “each model cargo of this case”), the plaintiff agreed to return the household electrical appliances offered to E Co., Ltd. to E Co., Ltd., and delegated the authority to recover the household electrical appliances, and the fact that the total amount of the household electrical appliances offered to each model cargo of this case is 43,780,60, and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments in the five model cargos (Ycheon, Scheon, Msan, Msan, Incheon, and Sea) constructed by E Co., Ltd. is recognized.

According to the above fact-finding, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's failure to return home appliances offered to each model house of this case to the plaintiff or E corporation, thereby causing damage equivalent to the price of home appliances offered to each model house of this case. Thus, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 23, 2017 to the date of delivery of the original copy of payment order to the plaintiff, which is obvious from August 23, 2017 to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is asserted that the plaintiff is not the owner of household appliances offered to each model of this case, and there is no legal basis for claiming the price of the above household appliances, but the plaintiff is responsible for returning home appliances supplied to each model of this case to E corporation in relation with E corporation. As above, the plaintiff is not the owner of the above household appliances. Thus, the above judgment should not be different just because the plaintiff is not the owner of the above household appliances. Thus, the defendant's above argument is rejected.

3. Conclusion.