1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 49,697,109 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 21, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant and supplied 129,697,109 won of refined meat from July 8, 2015 to October 9, 2015.

B. The Defendant paid 80,000,000 won to the Plaintiff for the same period as the price for goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid amount of KRW 49,697,109 (=129,697,109 KRW 80,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 21, 2016 to the date of delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The parties to the instant goods supply contract are Nonparty C, not the Defendant, and Nonparty C. 2) as a result of the Plaintiff’s defect in the refined goods supplied, thereby resulting in a decrease in the price of the goods.

B. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 1, the fact that the Plaintiff prepared a transaction statement on August 5, 2015, a personal trade name C operated by the Plaintiff, is recognized.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, around July 2015, where the Plaintiff started to supply the goods, the Defendant was not established, and the Defendant was established on July 27, 2015, and C was registered as a company director who is the representative of the Defendant. After the establishment of the Defendant, the Defendant paid the goods to the Plaintiff through its own account after its establishment, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice against the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is a mutually binding transferee of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant was deemed to have acquired the goods supply contract between the Plaintiff and C, which was concluded before its establishment.