2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs a new wholesale and retail business with the trade name called "D" in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff sent KRW 7,104,00 to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant that Sniven Korea Co., Ltd. would purchase 192 new shares manufactured and sold.

Defendant (E) issued a tax invoice by adding up the supply volume of 100 units (5,000,000 won) which appears to be the supply volume and transfer transaction in the future of the Plaintiff as well as the supply volume of 10 units (5,00,000 won).

C. However, the Defendant did not send a new letter to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to dispatch several times, and demanded the return of the price to the Defendant around September 2016, and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff issued an order directly to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant had the 60,000 new inventory 60,000 won of Schlos Korea, and the Defendant agreed to immediately send the new inventory to the Defendant.

Since the defendant did not send a new contract and the contract for the purchase of the goods was cancelled by the plaintiff's declaration of intention for rescission, the defendant is obligated to return the price for the goods to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant secured the right to operate a store directly operated by the Defendant as an investor of Sben Co., Ltd. in the form of a substitute. The Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, issued a new contract to Sben Korea on behalf of the Plaintiff, in the situation where he sold a new contract from Sben Korea, a company holding a large volume of new contracts due to a smooth supply of new contracts.

Therefore, the defendant is not a party to a contract for supply of goods and is not obligated to return the price to the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff remitted the purchase price for new orders to the defendant, and the defendant issued a tax invoice to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff who did not send a new order to the defendant.