A. The Plaintiff was requested by the Defendant to post Internet advertisements on companies, such as “B”, “C”, “Afry Korea Co., Ltd. (D)”, and “E-type foreign affairs,” and posted the Internet advertisements of each of the above companies from August 2012 to February 2013.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to collect 20% of the sales amount calculated as the Internet Advertising Clocks of the Neth Pison 】 the Defendant’s advertising commission and the remainder as the advertising payment. Specifically, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice stating the company’s total sales amount to the Defendant, and the Defendant issued a tax invoice stating the amount of the company’s advertising commission to the Plaintiff, and then paid to the Plaintiff the remainder after deducting the amount of the advertising commission from the advertising commission received from the advertising commission company.

C. The Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, posted an Internet advertisement of “Afry Korea Co., Ltd. (D)” but not received, is KRW 33,00,000 (including value-added tax).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 4, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The defendant asserts that the judgment of this safety defense is merely a broker and that the conclusion of the advertising contract with the plaintiff is an Afryer Korea (D) company, and thus, it is not a party to the contract, and thus there is no standing

However, as in the instant case, in a lawsuit claiming a payment of money, the person to whom the claim was made becomes the defendant, and it is merely a matter of determination as to whether the party to the contract is a party to the contract or whether the party has an actual obligation to perform the contract. Thus, the defendant's principal

3. Determination on the merits

A. The plaintiff asserts that (1) the defendant should pay the Internet advertising price under the advertising contract concluded with the defendant.

(ii).