2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant would be liable for the payment of the price of goods, and that the Defendant sold coconuted goods to the Defendant on credit between the middle order of November 2012 to March 2013, 2013, but did not receive KRW 4,486,448 out of the price of the goods, and that the Plaintiff paid the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the Defendant.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant concluded a contract on the supply of the goods between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ponp”), and it is merely merely against the ponp’s business operator, and it is not a party to the said contract, and it is not possible to accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the other party to a contract to supply the above goods is the defendant or the defendant bears the above goods payment obligation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the Plaintiff appears to have supplied the above goods to the pponp through the Defendant, who is the business operator of the ponp, via the ponp.

1. There is no goods supply contract to which the defendant is a party to the contract.

② The statement of transaction (Evidence A) issued by the Plaintiff in relation to the supply of the above goods is indicated as “ponp,” but the name of the Defendant is not entirely indicated.

③ On December 20, 2012 and February 13, 2013, the Plaintiff received the price for the above goods on two occasions, and all the price for the goods was remitted by the ppon.

④ The Defendant, before February 13, 2013 ( January 31, 2013), transferred the last price to the Plaintiff, retired from the pump.

⑤ As above, on March 20, 2013, the Defendant’s retirement from office returned part of the above goods to the Plaintiff.