As to this, the Defendant recognized the fact that the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 4,010,500 products from the Plaintiff during the period from October 30, 2014 to March 31, 2015, that it did not conclude a contract for goods supply with the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant asserted that it did not conclude a contract for goods supply with the Plaintiff.

As to the conclusion of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the supply of goods, each entry in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, which seems consistent with the above, is merely a transaction statement prepared by the Plaintiff itself, and it is difficult to believe it as it is (as to the evidence No. 3, the signature of the person who appears to have taken over the Plaintiff’s goods at the bottom is stated, but there is no assertion or proof as to what relationship between the signature and the Defendant exists), the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 (B), and the witness’s testimony in the witness No. 4 (C) are likely to believe it in light of the specific testimony, and the statement in the evidence No. 4 (C’s confirmation document) is difficult to believe it merely, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that B or D entered into a contract on the supply of goods by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that B or D is entitled to represent the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,010,500, the amount of goods the Defendant is the Plaintiff, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, from December 17, 2015, the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, until November 3, 2016, which is the date of the imposition of the judgment, to November 3, 2016, and to the day of full payment.