Defendant C Co., Ltd. 37,660,00 won for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from February 16, 2018 to July 31, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “F”, and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is a corporation engaged in civil engineering, manufacturing and selling building materials.

B. On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to receive the payment upon Defendant C’s request and supplied the Defendant with sanitary instruments and accessories equivalent to KRW 57,660,000, as soon as the Plaintiff agreed to receive the payment.

However, upon the above defendant's request, the tax invoice for the above product was issued to the defendant D (hereinafter "the defendant D") as the person to whom the above product was supplied.

(c).

On February 15, 2018, Defendant C paid KRW 20,000,00, which is a part of the goods price, to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of finding the determination as to the claim against Defendant C, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 37,660,000 (=57,660,000 - 20,000) and the amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from February 16, 2018 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case as of February 16, 2018 and 12% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant D is liable for the payment of the price of the goods since the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to Defendant D, and that the above Defendant did not conclude a contract on the supply of goods with the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff could not comply with the Plaintiff’s request on the grounds that he did not receive the goods.

In light of the following circumstances, it is recognized that Defendant D is liable to pay the price of the goods of this case, which is acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in the above evidence and evidence No. 1.