2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is equivalent to KRW 16 million at the market price of the domestic Lao Monobs (hereinafter “Manobs”) on March 22, 2016, with the Defendant’s assertion equivalent to KRW 16 million.

5. Body; 2. Body whose market price is equivalent to 4.8 million won, and the same year.

6.3. The Defendant supplied the amount of KRW 12 million at the salted fish market, but did not receive the total amount of KRW 32.8 million from the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is entitled to the above payment.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a goods supply contract as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Rather, in full view of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant do not have a common sense between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that they do credit transactions with 32.8 million won, such as mobile phone numbers, even though they do not know of contact information, are contrary to the empirical rule, there is no proof that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the goods, and that the transaction between May 2, 2016 and June 3, 2016 was not issued an invoice, there is an amount of money that he paid once to the account he knew at the request of B which he traded fishery products.

The defendant's assertion that he sent the business registration certificate to the designated facsimile number and received the invoice (A9) in the name of the plaintiff from B seems persuasive.

The plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant in conclusion must be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.

Since the judgment of the first instance is unfair in conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition.