1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from February 28, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence No. 1 and the witness Eul's testimony, the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff and C to supply 80 million won with the company (hereinafter "the contract of this case") on February 1, 2013 (hereinafter "the contract of this case"), and on the same day C paid 3.5 million won to the defendant as the contract deposit, and the plaintiff supplied the above company and 880 million won to C. The plaintiff is a person who received 27.5 million won from C. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay 27.5 million won for unpaid goods (=4.4 million won - 3.5 million won - 13 million won - 3.0 million won) and damages for delay calculated on February 28, 2015 by the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff and C.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant alleged that the contract of this case was entered into between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, but the quality of the company that the plaintiff agreed to supply is not appropriate to sell and thus notified the defendant of the termination of the contract of this case and there was no further transaction with the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant did not have the obligation to pay the price of the goods to

B. We examine the judgment, as seen earlier, although the Plaintiff is deemed to have supplied C with apologys and received part of the down payment and the goods payment to C, the testimony of C, which the Defendant seems to correspond with the fact that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the contract of this case, is not trustable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion based on the premise that the contract of this case was terminated is without merit without further review.

Even if it is assumed that the Defendant believed C’s testimony to the effect that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract, the Defendant would terminate the instant contract.