The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the transportation business, and the Defendants are engaged in the manufacturing business of chip and yeast water in the trade name called “D.”

B. On March 2019 and April 2019, the Defendants entered into an import agency contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) to request the import of the parts prior to the end of Go-gu. Defendant B paid KRW 35,000,000 to E on April 23, 2019.

(c)

G operating a quarantine company with the trade name “F” (hereinafter referred to as “F”) selected the Plaintiff as a transport company on April 19, 2019, and requested the transportation of the part prior to the end of the relevant Go-gu. The Plaintiff around that time transported the part prior to the end of the relevant Go-gu to the distribution center of the Defendants located in the Nam-gu Busan-si from the end of the relevant time to the end of the pertinent Go-gu.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants, either directly or through F, are the representatives or agents or agents, entered into a contract of carriage with the Defendants, which stipulates that the Defendants shall transport the part of the ancient horse to the logistics center and receive KRW 3,751,00 from the Defendants on May 1, 2019. As such, the Defendants are obliged to pay the above transportation charge and the delayed damages to the Plaintiff.

B. If the contract of carriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is not acknowledged, the Defendants obtained unjust benefits from the Plaintiff’s carriage, and thus, should return the benefits to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as each evidence of evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including main numbers, hereinafter the same) as to the primary argument, is insufficient to recognize that there was a representative or sub-agent relationship between the Defendants and F, or that the contract of carriage of the Plaintiff’s assertion was concluded directly between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the contract was concluded.