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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a supply contract with the Defendant who operates C, and supplied the said goods worth KRW 291,865,970 from October 2015 to June 2016. However, the Defendant received only KRW 183,933,450 out of the payment from the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff (291,865,970 KRW - 183,933,450) and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff entered into a supply contract with D using the name of C and traded cement, etc. to D, and the parties to the supply contract are not the defendant, so the defendant is not obligated to pay the price for the goods that is not payable to the plaintiff

2. Determination

A. According to each entry in Gap evidence No. 1 (including electronic tax invoices, each number), and Gap evidence No. 5 (C.), the fact that the electronic tax invoice No. 291,865,970, total amount of KRW 291,865,970, as the defendant, was issued from October 31, 2015 to June 30, 2016 is recognized, and the fact that the amount of KRW 1,894,750, from the business account of the plaintiff, was transferred from December 17, 2015 to the corporate account of the plaintiff.

However, the aforementioned evidence is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare a supply contract regarding the instant goods; (b) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff actually supplied the instant goods to the Defendant; and (c) the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 182,038,700 from E operated by D or D to the Plaintiff’s bank account of F’s employees from December 21, 2015 to September 12, 2016; and (c) the Plaintiff filed the instant claim on the premise that the said money was paid as the price for the instant goods; and (c) the money the Plaintiff received in the name of the Defendant during the said transaction period is the goods of this case.