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

A. On October 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with the Defendant (the Defendant’s agent) on the supply of glass products. Although the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the free product amounting to KRW 60,614,150 during the period from October 12, 2015 to January 25, 2016 under the said contract, the Defendant paid KRW 25,00,000 out of the free price, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount payable to the Plaintiff KRW 35,614,150 and delay damages therefrom.

B. The Plaintiff’s certificate No. 1 (Electronic Tax Invoice) cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the contract, and the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 3 (Electronic Tax Invoice) is merely that the Plaintiff prepared “the Defendant,” and the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 4-1 through No. 4 (Each Statement of Transactions) supplied favorable products to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that C, a transferee, took over the pertinent goods in the capacity of the Defendant’s agent.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, namely, there is no objective evidence to deem that C obtained the power of representation regarding the conclusion of the instant supply contract from the Defendant, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant received the favorable product claimed by the Plaintiff, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Unless there is any evidence to prove that the Defendant granted C the power of representation on the conclusion of the instant supply contract and the receipt of the glass product, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the favorable product as alleged, and otherwise, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2. Conclusion.