물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff supplied the fishery products to the defendant from July 2013 to December 2014. The plaintiff did not receive KRW 154,721,00 out of the price. The defendant asserts that he/she is obligated to pay KRW 154,721,00 to the plaintiff, and the defendant asserts that he/she is not the defendant but the defendant's husband, and thus the defendant is not the defendant's husband, so he/she cannot accept the plaintiff's claim.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 2 and 5, the Plaintiff is recognized as having supplied fishery products to D with the business registration name as the Defendant, and the fact that money has been transferred to the Plaintiff several times in the name of the Defendant.
However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 7, the plaintiff's title was remitted several times to the plaintiff. Eul, the representative director of the plaintiff, lent KRW 40 million to C on August 16, 2013, and Eul promised to pay the above amount through continuous transactions with the plaintiff. Eul promised to pay the above amount. The plaintiff's representative director E to pay KRW 100,000,000 and KRW 53,839,000 to the Eul. The plaintiff's representative director prepared two promissory deed No. 1,200 to the effect that the plaintiff would pay KRW 10,000,000, and the plaintiff's representative director Eul supplied the above amount to the plaintiff and the other party's bank No. 2, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the plaintiff's evidence was supplied to the plaintiff and the above defendant's account No. 5.
(b).