1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,036,952 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 10, 2015 to May 2, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a person who runs the wholesale and retail business of the company, and the defendant is a person who engages in the distribution business of the company in the Philippines.

B. The Plaintiff supplied 73,871,450 won (excluding defective goods) 12 times from October 17, 2014 to February 10, 2015 12 times in total 105,59,00 won , 17,50 won , 17,000 won , 17,000 won , 17,038,752 won , from April 30, 2014 to June 5, 2014 , to the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied 73,871,450 won , including 73,871,450 won , 105,59,00 won , 17,038,752 won , out of the supply price , to the Defendant of a container and parts related to a computer. The Plaintiff was not able to receive 17,038,752 won ,2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 55,036,952 (i.e., KRW 17,038,752, KRW 37,98,200) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from April 10, 2015 to May 2, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1), the Defendant alleged that he agreed to settle the price of goods arising from container transactions with the Plaintiff at KRW 30,646,90,00, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that there was the above agreement of the Defendant’s assertion only with the statement of the evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the above argument is without merit. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.