1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant made the Plaintiff’s misperception, etc., and around that time, concluded a contract for the supply of misperction directly with the Defendant’s representative D, and paid KRW 64,876,00 for the price of goods to the Defendant by remitting KRW 15 million to D’s account in accordance with D’s instructions, but did not receive any goods from the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above 64,876,00 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. Determination: (a) Each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 14, 15, 17, and 18 (including the serial number) are as follows: (b) the plaintiff paid KRW 15 million to the defendant’s representative on February 8, 2017; (c) the plaintiff paid KRW 22,50,000 to the defendant’s account in the name of the defendant on February 14, 2017; and (d) the amount of KRW 7,376,00 to the F account on March 6, 2017; and (c) the defendant concluded a tax invoice to supply the goods of KRW 2,200,000 to the defendant’s account on December 31, 2016; and (c) the defendant did not have any other duty to provide the goods under the contract to supply each of the above goods, as otherwise alleged by the plaintiff.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, ① The defendant’s representative D decided to invest in the G et al. operating fuelter business around April 2016. Accordingly, G et al. agreed with D to the effect that “G et al. manufactures fuelter, etc. in the remaining space of the defendant factory, and operates the pen business in the defendant’s name, and the profits and expenditures of the pen business unit are managed separately from the defendant.” ② G et al. from July 2016 to the defendant factory in accordance with the above agreement.