1. The Defendant’s KRW 710,371,985 as well as 6% per annum from March 1, 2014 to May 26, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiff was a company established in Thailand around July 25, 1990, and operated the manufacturing business of printed circuit board parts, etc. 2) B, along with the Republic of Korea, as a company established in Thailand around May 13, 2008 (hereinafter “D”). Around May 13, 2008, the Plaintiff became a joint representative with C and Thailand.

3) On the other hand, B is a stock company E in Korea around 2003 (hereinafter “E”).

A) Around September 2, 2010, the Defendant established a printing circuit board manufacturing business, etc. Around September 2, 2010, the Defendant exported and imported the printed circuit board parts using the business network of F, the mother of F, established in the Republic of Korea, and “E”. B. The Plaintiff’s transactional relationship between D and D received a total of eight orders from D from August 14, 2013 to January 31, 2014, supplied PCB (printed circuit board used in electronic equipment) parts to D from September 14, 2013 to February 28, 2014, and the price for the goods that had not been received from D up to the date is 22,06,567.08 U.S. (hereinafter “BE”).

If the base rate for sale and purchase is applied as of July 9, 2015, which is the date of the closing of argument, it is KRW 735,679,537 in Korean won (=22,06,567.08 feet x 33.43.43). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 25, Eul evidence 5 (each entry, including the relevant serial number, the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. The parties' assertion

A. In light of the fact that both the Plaintiff 1 and D are companies operated by both the Defendant and his family members, B, with the name of the Defendant’s representative director, and the Defendant guaranteed the quality of the PCB supplied by D to the Sejong M&D Co., Ltd., and was liable for defective goods, and the Defendant received the payment from the above Sejong M&D, it is merely the Defendant’s husband’s headquarters with the same legal entity as the Defendant, and therefore, denying the Defendant’s liability for the above goods payment obligation may be allowed as abuse of legal personality that violates the principle of trust and good faith.