On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a transaction agreement with the purport that the Plaintiff supplies goods, such as chests, to C from February 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, and the Defendant pays the price thereof (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and agreed to automatically renew the said agreement on a yearly basis, unless there is any ground for termination of the agreement.

The Plaintiff supplied goods to C in accordance with the instant agreement from February 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, but did not receive KRW 235,829,049, out of the price of goods until then.

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

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant supplied goods from the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of this case, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay 235,829,049 won and damages for delay payable to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant is not a party to the instant agreement, the Defendant’s summary of the argument is that the Defendant lent only the name of the party to the instant agreement to D, and thus does not bear contractual liability under the instant agreement. (2) The relevant legal doctrine generally constitutes a matter of interpreting the intent of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intention clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating it, and in the event that the contents of any contract are written in writing, which is a disposal document, the parties are not bound by the phrase used in the document, but only by the contents of the document, regardless of the internal intent of the parties.