2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a person who runs a wholesale business of food materials in the name of C, and the amount equivalent to KRW 2,833,624 as of the present, out of the food materials supplied from September 19, 2014 to May 21, 2015 (hereinafter “instant transaction period”) to the Defendant who runs the business in D’s trade name. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the above goods price and damages for delay.

B. The defendant asserts that the defendant did not receive food materials equivalent to KRW 2,833,624 from the plaintiff during the transaction period of this case, and that he did not operate his business in D for the above period.

2. For the following reasons, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff supplied food materials equivalent to KRW 2,833,624 during the instant transaction period to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit.

① The Plaintiff’s transaction account books (including numbers in the case of Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 2,833,624) contain the details of food materials equivalent to KRW 2,83,624, which the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant operating the business in D, but this is merely a document unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the said transaction account books only provide the Defendant with food materials equivalent to KRW 2,833,624, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

② In addition, according to the result of the fact-finding conducted by the director of the tax office below, since the representative of the D trade name can be recognized as having changed from the defendant to E, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant was operating the D trade name at the time of the transaction period in this case.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and thus the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is revoked with the defendant's appeal.