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.

Since the Plaintiff supplied oil equivalent to KRW 5,674,483 to the Defendant-owned vehicles at the gas station, which is the Plaintiff’s branch, from June 2012 to July 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is obligated to pay the said oil price to the Plaintiff, and that the other party who entered into a contract for oil supply with the Plaintiff was not a D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and that the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the said oil price to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 1-2, the Plaintiff supplied oil to the Defendant’s vehicle at the gas station, which is the Plaintiff’s branch, from June 2012 to July 2012; the Plaintiff, on June 30, 2012, issued electronic tax invoices consisting of KRW 5,015,608, total supply value and tax amount on July 31, 2012, and the total supply value and tax amount of KRW 658,875, respectively; on the other hand, it is recognized that the Plaintiff issued the electronic tax invoices that are 658,875, which are the sum of supply value and tax amount on July 31, 2012; on the other hand, it can be seen that the Defendant and D were supplied with the Plaintiff’s oil by transporting aggregate and soil with dump trucks; on March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff did not receive the payment from D’s actual supplier’s petroleum supply.