1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff sold Toluene equivalent to KRW 21,208,880 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay the price to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said price to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the Defendant is a party to the above Toluene sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), even if the Plaintiff is a party to the said Toluene sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), the Defendant indicated the granting of the power to the Plaintiff, and thus, is liable to act as an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act

B. A person who purchased the above Toluene from the Plaintiff is not the Defendant, but C, and C requested the Defendant to keep the Toluene, and only the Defendant kept it.

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the above Toluene to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. As to whether the party to the instant sales contract is the party to the instant sales contract, the fact that the Defendant was supplied with approximately KRW 21,208,880 g from the Plaintiff on October 30, 2015 to Toluene 25,040 g and kept it in the repository until now is not a dispute between the parties. According to the evidence No. 1, the fact that the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice for Toluene on October 31, 2015 that the Plaintiff was the party to the instant sales contract.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2, 3, and 6 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, 3, and 6 and the overall purport of testimony and pleadings by the witness C, the above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is a party to the instant sales contract, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is the purchaser of the instant sales contract is without merit.

① The Plaintiff, at the time of the Defendant’s actual operator, entered into the instant sales contract only at D and Defendant’s office.