1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded an additional agreement with the Defendant to add the location of Nonparty A’s operation to the place of delivery, upon entering into a goods transaction agreement with the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant arrangement”). B.

From August 2015 to November 2015, the Defendant supplied goods to the Plaintiff as the location B, and issued and delivered an electronic tax invoice, respectively, and the Plaintiff signed each electronic signature on the confirmation document stating the details of the transaction of goods and the balance of claims and obligations.

C. Around November 2015, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the goods worth KRW 72,311,105 in total as the location B, and the amount of the goods unpaid on November 2015 remains at the present KRW 62,31,105.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there exists no dispute, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 4-5, Eul evidence 4-1 through 19, Eul evidence 6-1 through 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the instant agreement that the Defendant sought payment of KRW 62,311,105 for the unpaid goods on November 2015. However, there was no request from the Plaintiff for the order, and the said transaction was conducted voluntarily by A, a subcontractor, without the Plaintiff’s consent. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have a duty to pay KRW 62,31,105 for the above goods. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation.

B. The Defendant supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 72,311,105 in total around November 2015 to the location of B, which is the place of delivery stipulated in the instant agreement, and the fact that there remains the price for the goods equivalent to KRW 62,31,105 in total is as seen earlier.

As above, the Plaintiff asserted that the goods transaction on November 2015, 2015, as the goods transaction was ordered by A to the Defendant at his own discretion, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the goods. However, each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 9 are used.