A. E, the spouse of the Plaintiff’s representative D, was the representative director of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gsan A”) with the same trade name as the Plaintiff at the place of business as the Plaintiff’s 10-dong 10-dong 18, and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) traded with the supply of materials, such as electric wires, from December 2, 2012 to August 2013.

B. The Plaintiff was established on December 16, 2013. From September 18, 2014 to July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with materials, such as electric wires, 20 times more than 20 times, and issued the same tax invoice as indicated in the supply column of the attached specification of transactions.

C. From July 17, 2014 to August 25, 2015, Defendant Company remitted the same amount of money as the repayment column in the attached specification of transactions to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 7, 8, 11 evidence, Eul's 1-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) Defendant C, as the representative of the Defendant Company, made the Plaintiff believe that the continuous supply transaction would be able to gain mutual benefits if it continues to be a supply transaction on the grounds of the construction share certificate; (b) provided the said goods from the Plaintiff and partly repaid the said goods, thereby causing damage equivalent to the remainder amount of the goods to the Plaintiff; (c) thus, Defendant C is liable to compensate for damages caused by unlawful acts under Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act; and (b) Defendant C is practically merely a private company of Defendant C, and Defendant C is liable to pay the goods jointly and severally with the Defendant Company

B. Each statement in the evidence Nos. 3 and 10, which alone led Defendant C to a loss by deceiving the Plaintiff.

A tort is committed solely on the fact that the performance of the obligation to pay the price of goods is delayed.