1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 73.5 million with a interest rate of 20% per annum from January 10, 2013 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 12, 2005, the Defendant agreed to be supplied with Toluene and Sobs by the Plaintiff and to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 73.5 million by November 30, 2005 (hereinafter “the instant price for goods”).

B. The defendant is the above A.

When the Plaintiff was unable to pay the price for the instant goods by the due date for port payment, on October 31, 2008, an agreement was concluded to pay KRW 137,100,000 by adding up to KRW 25,000,000,000 for other cash loans, and KRW 38,66 million until April 30, 2009.

However, the Defendant failed to pay the price of the instant goods to the Plaintiff by the agreed deadline.

C. As the Plaintiff failed to pay the instant goods, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant as a fraud, and the Defendant was tried to commit fraud in Suwon District Court Decision 2012 Godan2121 Decided the Defendant, and the Defendant was convicted of the Defendant, and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on April 3, 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant appealed on April 10, 2013, but the same year.

8. 23. Withdrawal of appeal and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 73.5 million agreed upon and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 10, 2013 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

The defendant asserts that the defendant transferred the new factory operated by the defendant to the plaintiff and repaid the price of the goods of this case.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the new factory operated by the defendant was transferred to the plaintiff. However, in addition to the price of the goods in this case at the time of the transfer of the above new factory, there is a lot of claims against the plaintiff against the defendant, and the transfer of the above new factory alone includes the price of the goods in this case.