1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,373,036 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from July 22, 2014 to April 3, 2015, and the following.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff, as the owner of C Trucks, is a person engaged in the cargo transport business using the said vehicle, and the Defendant is a person engaged in the cargo transport business under the trade name of D. 2) The Plaintiff agreed to transport the cargo of the owner of the cargo introduced by the Defendant and to receive the remainder after deducting 5% from the transport fees received by the Defendant from the said owner as the introduction fees.

Based on the above agreement, the Plaintiff transported the cargo requested from the owner of the goods, such as E and F, introduced by the Defendant from January 3, 2014 to April 30, 2014.

The weight of cargo and unit cost of transport fees prescribed in each transport contract shall be as stated in the attached Form No. 100, respectively, in the part of "transport weight" and "unit cost of transport fee."

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-10 evidence (including each number), Gap 11 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts found above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 36,373,036 won, total sum of the transport charges (the basis for calculation, see the attached sheet of calculation of the transport charges) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act, from July 22, 2014, which is the date following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, to April 3, 2015, which is the date of the decision of this case, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to pay to the plaintiff, as requested by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought a further payment of transportation fee of KRW 2,738,464 against the Defendant (i.e., the amount claimed in KRW 39,11,500 - the amount claimed in KRW 36,373,036). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the above claim, and thus, this part of the claim is without merit.

① The Plaintiff calculated the sum of carriages Nos. 22 to 40 by 842.030t. However, this part of the sum is 572.030t, and the sum of carriages is 4,223.