1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion C is a person operating “E” with the Plaintiff’s private village as the Plaintiff’s wife D, and the Defendant is a person operating “F” under the Defendant’s wife’s name.

C On March 7, 2015, the Plaintiff proposed that the Plaintiff will accept the “E” operated by C if the Plaintiff pays on behalf of the Plaintiff a debt of KRW 30 million incurred by C to the Defendant.

The plaintiff heard this objection and met the defendant, and the defendant agreed that "if C's debt is repaid, it shall be supplied in a stable manner for at least one year at least 1,00 tons of 1,00 tons per month."

Accordingly, on March 7, 2015, the Plaintiff seems to be the E’s business name at the time G.

The Defendant remitted KRW 18,341,166 to the head of the Tong (F) under the name of the Defendant, and paid KRW 10,757,980 to the Defendant in cash, and fully repaid C’s obligation. The Defendant remitted KRW 25,00,000 to the said head of the Tong under the name of G in advance under the name of G.

Nevertheless, the Defendant supplied the scrap metal to the Plaintiff for 13 days and discontinued the supply of scrap metal, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff as much as the amount stated in the purport of the claim.

If the defendant did not wish to supply scrap metal to the plaintiff for more than one year, the plaintiff shall repay the debt of the plaintiff in lieu of the plaintiff, and not operate E, and the defendant shall be liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff.

2. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff that “the Defendant would stably supply the powder of 1,000 tons per month for a minimum of one year,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 5, in a case where the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for fraud on the ground as alleged above by the plaintiff on May 30, 2019, the Jinju District Prosecutors' Office in the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office may only recognize the fact that the plaintiff made a disposition of unwritten evidence (incompetence of evidence) on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the above fact

The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.