1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,725,069 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 20, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator engaged in the chemical island manufacturing business and textile wholesale business, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a business operator engaged in roller sckeing and buttch knife manufacturing business and the construction business, etc. in the trade name of “D.

B. From January 2007 to June 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with various goods, such as fibers, and the price for the goods that the Defendant did not pay by June 30, 2014 is KRW 45,725,069.

C. The Plaintiff arranged the details of the supply of goods to the Defendant by classifying them into the account books for each transaction, including the transaction date, the name of the goods, the quantity, the unit price, the amount of value-added tax, the balance, etc., and each tax invoice was issued on June 30, 2014 by designating the Defendant as the recipient of the goods as of the end of

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Gap 8 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 45,725,069, and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from February 20, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the next day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant's argument on the plaintiff's assertion argues that the plaintiff's employee E division only received a request from the plaintiff's employee E division to keep and request the above-produced fiber, but only returned later, and it does not actually receive the fiber from the plaintiff's employee E division.

However, each statement in Eul Nos. 1 and 2 is insufficient to prove that the defendant can only serve as a material proving the fact that he/she disposes of the inventory goods in a lump sum, but is merely a storage, not a purchase of the relevant fibers, etc., and otherwise recognize the defendant's assertion.