1. The Defendant’s KRW 56,566,714 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 1, 201 to July 20, 201.

1. In addition to the allegations in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7’s written argument as to the plaintiff’s claim, the fact that the plaintiff received automobile parts from the defendant and processed them and supplied them to the defendant, and the defendant did not pay KRW 30,880,324 out of the above processed amount to the plaintiff, which was not paid KRW 25,686,390.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 56,566,714 won total of processing costs and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 1, 2011 to July 20, 201, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's defense against set-off by the defendant asserts that around April 2008, C, which was the representative director of the defendant, established the plaintiff within the defendant's factory site and actually operated the plaintiff, and had the defendant pay excessive processing fees to the plaintiff, and used the plaintiff's employee for his business, etc., and that the plaintiff obtained without any legal ground the profits equivalent to the sum of KRW 382,842,121 as follows, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for the above processed-price should be set-off within the extent equal to that of the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff obtained benefits without any legal cause only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff obtained benefits without any legal cause. The Defendant’s defense based on the different premise is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.