1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From January 2014 to October 2010, the Plaintiff supplied the fiber, etc. equivalent to KRW 271,252,895 to Nonparty B, the Defendant of which is the representative director, and received KRW 129,652,895 as the price for goods from April 2014 to April 2015, and did not receive KRW 141,60,000.

B. The non-party company processed fibers supplied by its clients, including the Plaintiff, and supplied it to other companies.

From February 2014 to February 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the product to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and until May 2, 2014, the Plaintiff received 35,000,000 won of the product price of KRW 311,825,910 and did not receive KRW 276,325,910, and even thereafter, the Plaintiff supplied the product amounting to KRW 138,883,392 and did not receive all payments. Thus, the Plaintiff did not receive the product amounting to KRW 415,209,302.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not inform the plaintiff of his/her ability to repay the non-party company, but did not enter into a supply contract with the plaintiff and received textile products.

In addition, the defendant has aggravated the financial status of the non-party company by managing the non-party company only, and further, on May 2014, there was a situation in which it is impossible to settle the price of the goods any longer.

Therefore, the defendant could have predicted or anticipated the situation in which the fulfillment of the goods payment obligation against the plaintiff of the non-party company could be considerably difficult or impossible.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of such circumstance and continued to expand the plaintiff's losses.

As such, the defendant's act constitutes an intentional or gross negligence when he neglected to perform his duties in violation of the duty of loyalty and good manager's duty of care, and thus, the defendant constitutes the defendant's act, under Article 401 of the Commercial Act, 141,600.