1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the price of goods as a transaction party;

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is a party to a contract, barring special circumstances, such as where the actor who entered into a judgment contract does a legal act under the name of another person, and the actual actor who makes a transaction with the Plaintiff is the husband E even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff was the party to a transaction with the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff was the party to a transaction with the Plaintiff and E was the party to the transaction with the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant, which is mutually named D, with the trade name of D, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 39,989,80.80. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. The plaintiff asserts that E has entered into a transaction with the plaintiff as the defendant's representative. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that E has engaged in a transaction with the plaintiff as the defendant's representative (Article 115 of the Civil Act does not indicate that the agent's act is for the principal) and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has granted the right of representation to E.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's liability is recognized by the right of representation, even if the defendant did not grant the right of representation to the plaintiff as the plaintiff's husband and wife, but it is clear that the operation of D is not included in the scope of daily household affairs as the defendant's representative, as seen earlier.

2. Whether the defendant is liable to the partner or not, the plaintiff is in charge of external business as the defendant's husband and wife, and the defendant is in charge of internal business. D.