1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) supplied the Defendant with automobile parts by September 2017 according to the goods supply contract with the Defendant.

(2) The lower court determined that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purchase price of goods as of September 12, 2017, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purchase price of goods, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purchase price of goods, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. On January 11, 2018, the Plaintiff, a notary public against the Nonparty Company, issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “order for the seizure and collection of the instant claim”) regarding “the amount until it reaches KRW 65,383,561 out of the claim for the price of the instant goods held by the Nonparty Company against the Defendant,” as the title of execution of the notarial deed in the case No. 1546 of the notarial deed No. 1546 of the notarial deed No. 1546 of the notarial deed in the notarial deed No. 2017, Jan. 11, 2018, the original copy of the notarial deed became the Defendant on January 12, 2018.

C. Based on the instant order of seizure and collection, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of KRW 10,000,000 out of the amount collected under the Daejeon District Court’s 2018 Ghana 1057, and received a decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision of performance recommendation of this case”) from the said court on February 23, 2018, stating that “the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 and delay damages therefrom,” and the said decision of performance recommendation was served on the Defendant on February 28, 2018, and became final and conclusive on March 15, 2018.

On March 27, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 10,000,00 to the Plaintiff under the pretext of collection in accordance with the instant decision on performance recommendation.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 1-1-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) argument of a Party;