1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,834,50 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 23, 2013 to August 20, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a cargo transport business company, and the defendant is a person engaged in the manufacturing business of compost B's trade name.

B. From December 2012 to April 2013, the Plaintiff transported the Defendant’s retirement expenses equivalent to KRW 105,484,50 in total.

C. The Plaintiff, who was supplied with the Defendant, issued a tax invoice of KRW 105,484,50 in total over five times during the aforementioned period, and the Defendant confirmed this tax invoice and paid KRW 85,200,000 to the Plaintiff in total over 11 times from January 10, 2013 to April 5, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Although the Plaintiff was aware of the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion through C’s introduction, the Plaintiff transported the Defendant’s cargo to the Defendant and received the price from the Defendant.

C is not entitled to receive the payment from the Plaintiff, and even if the Defendant paid the transportation cost to C, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff paid the transportation cost.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 21,334,50, which is the transport cost unpaid to the Plaintiff [the transport cost of KRW 4,500,000 that is not paid to the Plaintiff” [the transport cost of KRW 85,20,000 that is paid to the Plaintiff - KRW 3,450,00 that is paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant].

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is only that the Plaintiff, not the Defendant, entered into a transport contract with C, and transferred the transport amount to the account requested by C according to the tax invoice sent by C according to the past transaction method with C.

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the transport cost to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the fact that the defendant's obligation to pay the transportation cost was recognized, that is, the plaintiff was responsible for transporting the defendant's retirement fee to the defendant, and the plaintiff was supplied with the defendant.