1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C is a person who runs a construction business under the trade name of “D,” and the Defendant is a company that runs a livestock product manufacturing and processing business, etc.

B. Around June 2012, C entered into a contract with the Defendant for a new land-based construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”) conducted in the first place of Kimcheon-si and Kim Chang-gun, Kimcheon-gun (hereinafter “instant construction project”) with the construction cost of KRW 4.6 billion (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (c)

C began construction since the date of entering into the instant contract, but around October 11, 2012, the Defendant agreed to reverse the instant construction contract with the Defendant and the discontinuance of construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul witness C's partial testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a goods supply contract with the Defendant and supplied stone equivalent to KRW 104,700,000 in total from August 7, 2012 to October 25, 2012. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 104,70,000 and delay damages therefrom.

3. In light of the reasoning of the judgment, part of the evidence No. 6 (including paper numbers), and witness C’s testimony, which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, are difficult to believe.

Meanwhile, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, part of evidence Nos. 7 through 9 (including paper numbers), and witness C’s testimony, the fact that the stone supplied by the plaintiff was used for the instant construction, and the fact that the plaintiff supplied stone to the instant construction site by October 25, 2012 even after the suspension of construction on October 11, 2012. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the party who entered into a goods supply contract with the plaintiff is the defendant.