1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating the D gas station located in C at permanent residence (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s gas station”). Around August 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with H and G on the lease of a sprink (registration number: I, etc.) from August 2014 to November 15, 2014, the Defendant used E’s representative name when conducting forest road construction projects at the construction site located in F at permanent residence (hereinafter “instant construction site”). G from March 25, 200 to May 23, 2014, while engaging in construction machinery rental business, and continued construction machinery rental business. (b) From August 25, 2014 to August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff was unable to receive the Plaintiff’s oil from August 20, 2014 to November 15, 2014 (hereinafter “E”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 9, and 11, Eul's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into an oil supply contract with the Defendant, other than G and H, and supplied oil to the vehicles related to the instant construction site from August 8, 2014 to November 15, 2014, on a credit basis. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid oil price of KRW 6,217,200 and the delayed damages.

B. The defendant's assertion E merely leased a digging machine from H and G, and the defendant did not have concluded a oil supply contract with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 10, the order to submit financial transaction information to permanent agricultural cooperatives, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of K’s testimony and pleading as a whole: