A. The status of the parties (1) The Plaintiff is a corporation that engages in wholesale and retail business of main facilities and main facilities.

(2) Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is a corporation that engages in franchise business such as C, and Defendant B is the representative director of Defendant A.

B. (1) On November 2014, the Plaintiff supplied gas supply facilities, etc. (1) around 2014, the Plaintiff supplied gas supply goods worth KRW 25,932,115 to the “C Kintex Store” located under the ground of the Gint Market.

(2) Around December 2014, the Plaintiff supplied gas services worth KRW 54,515,560 to E restaurants located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 3-1, 2-2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, upon Defendant A’s request, the Plaintiff supplied Kintex and E with the main product, Defendant A is obligated to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff. 2) Defendant A and Defendant A asserted that Defendant A’s claim against Defendant A is unjust since the supply of the main product by the Plaintiff is an individual B.

B. Determination 1) According to the respective descriptions 1 and 2 of Gap evidence 1 and 2, C Kinex became registered as a business operator on November 3, 2014, and E on January 3, 2015, and the plaintiff can recognize that he/she issued an electronic tax invoice with B after he/she supplied the main goods to each restaurant. However, in light of the following facts, it is recognized that the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the defendant A for the main goods.

A) From May 2014, at Defendant A’s request, the Plaintiff supplied the main goods to C and the Gu’s station stores, etc., and received the price for the goods, and the tax invoice was also issued by Defendant A as the recipient of the goods. (B) At the request of Defendant A’s staff, the Plaintiff supplied Kintex and E with the main goods, and the details and schedule of the supply were discussed with the employees of the said company.

However, the plaintiff is the defendant A.