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

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who is engaged in the production, etc. of gold in the trade name of “C”.

B. The Defendant is an individual business operator who had completed business registration on November 6, 2013 while running the criminal withdrawal, etc. in the name of “D” from October 16, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul's statement of No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied the penalty to the Defendant from April 2012 to July 2013. The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 32,84,000 for the unpaid amount and delayed payment damages.

3. Determination: (a) The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the unpaid penalty amount equivalent to the period from April 2012 to July 2013, 2013; (b) the Defendant commenced a business as an individual entrepreneur only after October 16, 2013, and the Defendant’s business registration was completed on November 6, 2013; (c) the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim itself is inconsistent with the aforementioned objective facts; (d) the Plaintiff’s supply of gold papers to the Defendant is difficult to be deemed to be proven to be reliable; (c) the Plaintiff submitted the evidence No. 2 (Transaction No. 2) to the Defendant as of January 2014, but there is no evidence to deem that the content was acceptable or consented by the Defendant; and in light of the fact that the content indicated in No. 1 is different from the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

It is insufficient to conclude that the Defendant is liable to pay the penalty surcharge, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

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