A. The Plaintiff operated the “C” of manufacturers of leather, etc., and the Defendant operated the “D” of manufacturers of leather, etc.

B. On August 31, 2012, at the request of “E” (Representative F), the Plaintiff supplied human being leather (including value-added tax) to the Defendant’s warehouse, and received payment from E.

C. Since then, through G, the Plaintiff, who was an E employee, decided to directly supply leathers with the Defendant, and received an order from the Defendant on November 3, 2012, issued a tax invoice of KRW 37,275,700, including value added tax (3,388,700, and KRW 37,700,00,000, and issued to the Defendant on November 3, 2012. < Amended by Act No. 11373, May 5, 2094; Act No. 13087, May 3, 2078; Act No. 11374, Dec. 30, 2012; Act No. 11383,75,700, including value added tax (3,38,700,000,).

[Reasons for Recognition] 1 to 6 Evidence, testimony of witness G, fact-finding on the motion of this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 37,275,700,000, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from April 18, 2013 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.

B. The judgment of the defendant's assertion is that (1) only traded with E and there was no direct transaction with the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff is not liable to pay the price for the plaintiff, not the party to the contract. (2) Even though the contract ordered natural leathers and the transaction was suspended due to the suspension of the transaction, it is not liable to pay the price, and (3) the goods stored at the defendant's warehouse are not supplied by the supply contract. (4) The goods stored at the defendant's warehouse are not supplied by the supply contract.