1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts of recognition are acknowledged that the Plaintiff is engaged in oil sales business under the trade name “C gas station” from February 27, 201 to “C,” and that from April 30, 201 to October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff (the representative F, hereinafter “E”) with oil equivalent to KRW 4,7310,000 and issued a tax invoice with the total amount of KRW 4,7310,000 from April 30, 201 to October 31, 2014. However, it is recognized that E was unable to repay the Plaintiff with the total amount of KRW 2,031,00 out of the above oil price [the fact that there is no dispute, evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including additional number), and the purport of the entire pleadings];

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the representative director G is the husband of the representative F, and the defendant's representative director G actually operates the defendant and E, and the defendant's representative director agreed to pay the plaintiff's oil price to E, so the defendant asserts that the defendant should pay the above oil price of KRW 2,0310,000 and the damages for delay.

According to the statement of No. 3, and witness H’s testimony, G is recognized to the purport that the Plaintiff would be held responsible for the Plaintiff’s oil payment to the Plaintiff’s E using the expression “in person” or “in person”.

However, it is not sufficient to view the above expression as the purport to recognize the defendant's liability for repayment as the representative director, and there is no evidence to regard the defendant as the subject of the same rights and duties as the defendant E.

(However, it is a separate issue whether G is jointly and severally liable with E as an individual). 3. Conclusion, the claim in this case is dismissed as it is without merit.