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

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the manufacturing business of the director general of the bureau, and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who runs the small wholesale business of agricultural products.

B. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, KRW 3,00,00 on March 18, 2013, KRW 3,000,000 on May 6, 2013, KRW 200,000 on May 20, 2013, KRW 11,500,00 on June 11, 2013, KRW 3,000 on August 24, 2013, KRW 200,00 on KRW 2,00,00 on October 14, 2013, and KRW 5,00,000 on March 11, 2014, KRW 200,00 on KRW 10,00 on April 3, 200, KRW 1000 on KRW 10,00 on May 3, 2015, KRW 30,05,00 on May 30, 2016;

C. On July 3, 2014, the Defendant transferred KRW 20,000,00 from an enterprise bank to C, and on July 4, 2014, transferred KRW 15,000,000 to C, the representative director of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff would be supplied with the spathal spathal, etc. from the defendant, and paid a total of KRW 35,500,000 to the defendant, but did not receive the spathal from the defendant. Thus, the defendant should return the above supply price of KRW 35,50,000 to the plaintiff.

B. We examine the judgment, the above basic facts, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.