1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual 6% from October 21, 2013 to September 21, 2015, and the following.

1. The fact that the judgment on the cause of the claim is based on the annexed sheet (Provided, That the "creditor" is "Plaintiff", and the "debtor" is "defendant", and it is deemed that the defendant was led to confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is not clearly disputed by the defendant.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40,000,000 won for the remaining goods and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from October 21, 2013 to October 22, 2015, which is the service date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff returned the instant goods, down payment and intermediate payment to the Defendant, and at the same time, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because the Plaintiff agreed to return the instant goods from the Defendant and terminate the goods contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was such agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant returned the instant goods to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion appears

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.