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

The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of gambling manufacturing and wholesale and retail business, and the defendant is an individual entrepreneur who manufactures and engages in wholesale business with the trade name "B".

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, the purport of the argument by the parties to the entire pleadings, as Plaintiff supplied 2,5740,000 won in accordance with the Defendant’s order on September 17, 2015 (hereinafter “instant goods”), the Defendant is liable to pay the said price.

The defendant did not have ordered the goods of this case to the plaintiff or supplied the goods of this case from the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant did not have a duty to pay the above price.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

Contracts, etc. between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the instant goods transaction were not prepared.

The evidence Nos. 1 through 3 is prepared by the Plaintiff, and it is insufficient to recognize that there was a transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant of the instant goods.

According to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff traded the goods of this case with C, and the defendant's intention was not confirmed, and the defendant's business registration certificate was issued by C.

It is insufficient to recognize that C had the Defendant’s business registration certificate and delegated C with the instant goods transaction.

“Seoul Dongdaemun-gu,” which is the defendant’s business address indicated in Gap evidence 1 (Electronic Tax Invoice), is different from the location of the location indicated in the business registration certificate submitted by the defendant, "Seoul-gu, Manyang-si E building and 506.”

Since there is a possibility that the Defendant filed a purchase report with Gap evidence due to occupational error, the fact of the purchase report alone is that there was a transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant of the instant goods.