1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,380,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 16, 2013 to June 17, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From April 14, 2013 to May 14, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with households equivalent to KRW 77,880,000 (including value-added tax) for office use.

B. The Plaintiff’s payment of part of the goods is KRW 17,380,000 for the unpaid goods as of the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 17,380,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from October 16, 2013 to June 17, 2014, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the above Act from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendant asserted to the effect that, on May 15, 2014, the Defendant issued two promissory notes equivalent to KRW 46,380,000, the total amount of goods unpaid as at the time of May 15, 2014, to the Plaintiff, and that, on December 29, 2014, D, a partner of C and B, a partner of B, would pay KRW 46,380,00 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the goods to the Plaintiff.

If the assumption of the obligation is overlapped, it is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the parties indicated in the assumption of the obligation, and it is deemed that the acceptance of the obligation is made in respect of the assumption of the obligation, or if it is not clear whether the overlapping person is an assignee of the obligation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36228 Decided September 24, 2002, etc.). The circumstance alleged by the Defendant alone alone is difficult to readily conclude that there was a conclusive agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to exempt the Defendant from the Defendant’s goods payment liability, with the intent of the Plaintiff to exempt the Defendant and to solely recover from the Defendant, A, B, C, and D.