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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a tree supply contract with the Defendant during the period from November 12, 2007 to October 28, 2008, a total of KRW 125,653,00,00, including tree, large tree, and scar tree. However, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 85,00,000 to the total of KRW 85,65,000, and the payable amount is KRW 40,653,000. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a tree supply contract. (2) The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a tree as a part of the unpaid tree supply price, and introduced C, not a party to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

The Defendant’s payment of KRW 85,00,000 to the Plaintiff is merely a repayment made by the Defendant in subrogation of C in the intentional responsibility as to the escape of the Plaintiff without paying the tree price to the Plaintiff.

B. First of all, according to whether there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the supply of trees alleged by the Plaintiff, namely, whether the Defendant was the other party to the contract for the supply of trees alleged by the Plaintiff, the fact that there was no dispute, and the fact that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to approximately 70% of the price of trees alleged by the Plaintiff, but it cannot be ruled out that the Defendant paid the said amount to the Plaintiff on the grounds as alleged by the Plaintiff, so long as the possibility that the Defendant would have paid the said amount to the Plaintiff on the grounds as alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be ruled out, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above fact and the statement of evidence No. 2.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.