1. Defendant A shall pay 38,015,000 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from December 31, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

(a) the sale price of goods from July 2012 to May 2013, 2012;

(b) Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment based on the recommendation of confession;

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Basic facts 1) KTL Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

(2) From 2012 to 2012, the Plaintiff’s cooperation company is the Plaintiff’s cooperation company providing services related to delivery establishment, delivery center management, and other management affairs under a contract with the Plaintiff. Defendant B is the employee of the non-party company. 2) The Plaintiff’s employees and cooperation company’s employees implement special sales commissions when the Plaintiff sells the Plaintiff’s product. For this purpose, the employees and cooperation company’s employees were registered as the Plaintiff’s salesperson, and Defendant B is also registered as the Plaintiff’s salesperson

3) From July 2012 to May 22, 2013, Defendant B sold the Plaintiff’s goods equivalent to KRW 38,015,00 to Defendant A. Accordingly, the Plaintiff delivered to Defendant A the goods equivalent to the above amount, but the Plaintiff was not paid the price for the said goods by the Defendant A. The fact that there was no ground for recognition, Party A’s evidence, and Party B’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although Defendant B, as the Plaintiff’s salesperson, had a contractual obligation to request the Plaintiff to release the product after receiving the payment, entered false information as if the Plaintiff received the payment in the form of computer without receiving the payment, and prevented the Plaintiff from receiving the price for the product against the Defendant, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 38,015,00 for damages due to nonperformance. 2) The judgment of the Plaintiff was based on the fact that Defendant B was registered as the Plaintiff’s salesperson. However, considering that Defendant B was registered as the Plaintiff’s employee as the Plaintiff’s salesperson, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff are thereby obligated.