2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 4,150,146.

A. On January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to take over the work with Nonparty Company MobilizationF&B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) upon Nonparty Company’s request, and agreed to take over the work on which the Defendant entered the Home Purler’s goods at the Home Purler’s discount store. From February 1, 2014, the Plaintiff performed the work on the storage of relics.

B. The Defendant’s transfer of business to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s transfer of business to the New New Ship Distribution Center (hereinafter “New New Ship Distribution Center”) is the instant logistics center.

) Since the date following the actual storage of goods is calculated as the date of entry into the account book, on January 31, 2014, the Plaintiff was treated as the Plaintiff’s storage on February 1, 2014 and received settlement of the price for the goods from the Nonparty Company. The Plaintiff entered the amount of KRW 4,150,146 into the instant logistics center on January 31, 2014. (c) The Plaintiff was aware that the portion of the Plaintiff was delivered to the Defendant on January 31, 2014 and paid KRW 9,702,171 to the Defendant on August 222, 2014, including the amount of KRW 4,150,146, as the amount of goods, according to the existing contractual relationship with the Defendant. [The grounds for recognition are without dispute, the items in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. The Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 4,150,146 to the Defendant on January 31, 2014, which entered the instant logistics center. However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have supplied the Defendant with the goods entered the instant logistics center on January 31, 2014, and there is no evidence suggesting that there exists a legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which serves as the basis for the obligation to pay the goods, such as a contract for supply of goods, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant had the Plaintiff, who is a subsequent company, on January 31, 2014, the contract on the storage of relics between the Nonparty Company, remain in existence, enter the date following the actual storage of the products into the account book.