2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On January 2013, the Plaintiff prepared a written estimate on October 24, 2012 and sent it to the Defendant, stating that Quant Nu Domen6701 Disk Disk 1 (hereinafter “instant equipment”) would supply 52 million won (Additional Tax) to the Defendant.

B. On January 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on December 27, 2012, consisting of “the Plaintiff, the recipient, the Defendant, the supply price of 52 million won, and the instant equipment.”

C. On June 4, 2013, the Defendant remitted KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff, and KRW 20 million on July 30, 2013, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the party's assertion (1) The plaintiff entered into the instant equipment supply contract with the defendant, as a introduction by B.

Even if the decision-making company B entered into a supply contract in the name of the defendant, the parties to the contract are the parties to the contract.

In addition, even if the defendant cannot be seen as a party to a contract, there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the payment of price to be paid by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is seeking to pay 27,200,000 won, which is the unpaid amount of supply.

(2) Defendant: A tax invoice issued in relation to the supply of the instant equipment is a false tax invoice issued upon the request of the Bank of Korea, and the company that entered into the supply contract with the Plaintiff is the Bank of KoreaB, and the Plaintiff was aware of such circumstances.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11, the supply contract was concluded between the original and the Defendant on the instant equipment solely based on the facts acknowledged earlier.

It is difficult to recognize the defendant as a party to the above supply contract, and the defendant paid the price of supply between the plaintiff and the defendant.