1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: KRW 71,726,000 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a “H supply contract” with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and “G” located in Seoul Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul. The period is from April 1, 2016 to May 5, 2016, and the contract amount is KRW 135 million (excluding value-added tax). After entering into a contract, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 40.5 million of the contract amount as an advance payment, and receive KRW 94.5 million remaining within 20 business days after the completion and approval of the supply.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). B.

On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff received advance payment of KRW 40,50,000 (including value-added tax) and completed the supply of bedclothess, etc. under the instant contract on June 2, 2016. On July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice to the Defendant Company. On August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff received a written promise to pay KRW 3.9 million for the remainder of KRW 17.5 million, including value-added tax, from the Defendant Company, KRW 3.9 million on September 30, 2016, as well as KRW 33.9 million on October 31, 100 and KRW 3.95 million on November 30, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 71,716,00 among the accounts for supply under the instant contract, and the Plaintiff sought payment of the said money to Defendant D for the following reasons.

1) Defendant D agreed to repay the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the price of goods to the Plaintiff on several occasions, and in fact, according to the above agreement, Defendant D deposited the sale price of Defendant D’s personal property and the money of J Co., Ltd., the husband I operated into the Plaintiff’s account and partly repaid it. 2) Although Defendant D, a corporate father, has the form of an external form of a legal entity, it is the one of Defendant D’s legal entities.