1. The Defendant’s KRW 240,660,970 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from April 26, 2014 to March 25, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around March 31, 2014, Sick Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the name of the Company omitted) (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”) did not submit to the Defendant the data set forth on April 25, 2014, the date of payment of KRW 240,660,970, and the date of payment of KRW 25m gravel, etc., but the Defendant does not explicitly dispute the date of payment itself.

C. The Defendant issued the electronic tax invoice, however, there is no evidence to acknowledge the allegation that the evidence No. 1-6 (electronic tax invoice) is invalid.

(hereinafter “instant goods payment claim”). B.

Sick Industry transferred the instant commodity price claim to B on April 1, 2014, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim around April 7, 2014.

Although the defendant asserts that the above assignment of claims is null and void, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.

C. Thereafter, around October 24, 2014, B transferred the instant claim for the price of goods to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on October 29, 2014, and the said notification reached the Defendant on October 30, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, the debtor of the claim for the price of the instant goods, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the final transferee of the claim for the price of the instant goods, the amount of KRW 240,660,970, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from April 26, 2014 to March 25, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, from March 25, 2016, and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning

B. The judgment of the defendant regarding the defendant's assertion (1) The defendant conflicts with the provisional seizure of multiple claims against the goods price claim of this case.