1. The Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 2,726,280 on May 24, 2017 to the Defendant does not exist.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and evidence Nos. 5, the defendant is a corporation engaged in door-to-door sales, mail order, electronic commerce transaction, and services incidental thereto. The defendant, around May 24, 2017, received the call from the person who asserts himself/herself as the plaintiff to purchase at KRW 29.70,00 from the person who argued as the plaintiff, and received a copy of the resident registration certificate and the account number (C bank D). When part of the purchase price was deposited into the defendant's account, the defendant sent the cleaning machine of this case to "Yeongdong-gu, Minedong, E apartment, F, the address designated by the telephone, and the plaintiff reported the purchase of the plaintiff's resident registration certificate of this case by forging his/her name, and the defendant cannot be found to have reported the purchase of the plaintiff's cleaning machine of this case to the defendant on June 5, 2017.

2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the facts

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 Decided March 13, 1998, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was purchasing the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate without purchasing the cleaning machine from the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff purchased the cleaning machine of this case by forging the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate. Thus, there is no evidence by the Defendant as to the fact that the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff on May 24, 2017. Thus, the Plaintiff’s Defendant on May 24, 2017.