1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From May 30, 2015 to April 30, 2016, the Plaintiff traded with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd”) for the processing of the new cover, and supplied the Defendant Co., Ltd. with the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) by leasing and processing the new cover, such as the “supply price” column, on the date indicated below.

B. The defendant company mentioned above to the plaintiff.

The sum totaling KRW 30 million in the column of the "amount to be returned" in the table of paragraph (1) was paid as the processing costs.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1-20, Gap evidence 2-2-4, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1-1-7, Eul evidence 2-1-4, Eul evidence 2-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. From September 30, 2010 to April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a new sub-explosion processing, and was unable to receive KRW 36,378,840 from the Defendant.

The Defendants did not pay the above contract fee by December 31, 2018, but did not pay it. Thus, the Defendants jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff the contract fee of KRW 36,378,840 and the delay damages.

B. As to the claim against Defendant B, only the evidence No. 5 of the judgment as to the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant B with a new sub-faculing process.

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B agreed to pay the Plaintiff a full fee to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is without merit.

C. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant Company shall pay to the Plaintiff the full-time processing cost of KRW 36,378,840 and delay damages. 2) As to the Plaintiff’s full-time processing cost claim against the Defendant Company, the Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations has expired even after the lapse of three years from April 30, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company.

The plaintiff.