1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a person engaged in export agency business, etc. with the trade name of "E".

B. On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a contract on the supply of goods with the Defendant and the Defendant for the supply of creative materials equivalent to KRW 45,158,282 (hereinafter “instant contract”) and the goods supplied under the said supply contract (hereinafter “instant goods”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with creative materials equivalent to KRW 45,264,110 in accordance with the instant contract. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 45,264,110 for the purchase price of goods.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the actual party who entered into a goods supply contract with the plaintiff is G, and that the plaintiff prepared the contract of this case formally with the defendant in order to issue a written confirmation of purchase for the refund of value-added tax.

B. Generally, the determination of this Court constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of a party involved in the contract.

In a case where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a juristic act, which becomes a problem in the interpretation of the intention of the parties, the contents of the juristic act, motive and background of such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the genuine intention of the parties, etc. shall be comprehensively

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da256999 Decided January 17, 2019). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are deemed to have prepared the instant contract, but in light of the following facts and circumstances, the Defendant merely concluded the instant contract with the intent of having the Plaintiff refund value-added tax by applying zero-rate tax, in view of the fact that it is recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared the instant contract, respectively, and that the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7, and 9, and that the testimony at the trial witness J was presented as a whole.