In other words, while the plaintiff asserts that it is a contract established with the defendant company, the defendant company is merely a contract of the defendant company C, so the above argument is judged based on the legitimacy of the above argument.

On June 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a verbal agreement with the Defendant Company to lease Mongolian, sound equipment, and lighting equipment to the Defendant Company during the period of the D event (hereinafter “instant event”). After the agreement, the Plaintiff issued each written estimate, which entered into “A” in the “A”, to C.

B. C around June 20, 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s request, and A.

With respect to the oral contract mentioned in paragraph (1), the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company prepared the Mongolian Lease Contract (Evidence 2) and the Sound/Lighting Equipment Lease Contract (Evidence 3) (hereinafter the above two contracts referred to as the “instant contract”) specified as the contracting party, and delivered them to the Plaintiff.

Of the contract of this case, among the parties to the contract of this case, the part of the defendant company among the parties to the contract of this case is clearly stated as "B and the representative director E", and the employee identification number of the defendant company is affixed to the right side of the name of E, and each part of the contract of this case is divided by the employee identification number of the defendant company. Since before the contract of this case, C has been permitted to use the name of the defendant company, the office title of the defendant company, the office title of the defendant company, and the office title of the defendant company, from the representative director of the defendant company, the employee identification number of the defendant company was also allowed.

At the time, C did not allow the Plaintiff not the Defendant Company but the Plaintiff to talk that C is a party.

C. At the time, the representative director E of the defendant company.