1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 6, 2011, the Plaintiff received a proposal from the Defendant that he/she would arrange for the purchase of scrap metal from the two main companies located in Gyeonggi-do.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff on June 8, 2011 and

6. 10. The Defendant transferred total of KRW 118,098,200 for scrap metal to a quasi-account (C, D) designated by the Defendant.

C. Meanwhile, as a part of the scrap metal delivered by the Plaintiff through the Defendant was different from the specifications of the scrap metal, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the Defendant. Accordingly, on June 11, 201, the Defendant is liable for the difference of the scrap metal amounting to KRW 12,230,000, respectively, and on June 21, 201, respectively, prepared a cash custody certificate to the effect that the said amount due was due on June 30, 201, and issued it to the Plaintiff, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from August 13, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, which is after the due date specified in the cash custody certificate (Evidence A 3) for KRW 12,230,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant argues that the part of the plaintiff's damage caused by the difference between the plaintiff and the seller should be resolved between the plaintiff and the seller, and that each letter and cash custody certificate are merely prepared by the defendant to the purport that the defendant will be held liable for the intention as a broker of the scrap metal, but the defendant's assertion is not legally responsible for the defendant. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge such defendant's assertion, the above argument by the defendant

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the grounds of its ground. It is so ordered as per Disposition.