1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and engages in wholesale business, etc., and the Defendant is an internal director of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) supplied goods from domestic companies, including the Plaintiff, and exported all goods to Russia (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. From October 201 to December 2014, 201, the Plaintiff supplied Nonparty Company with a total of KRW 1,550,429,000, and the price for the goods that Nonparty Company failed to pay to the Plaintiff was KRW 40,000,000.

C. The Plaintiff supplied Nonparty Company with a heat equivalent to KRW 334,432,00,00,00 on August 6, 2015, and KRW 77,66,00 on November 10, 2015, and KRW 334,432,00 on March 28, 2016 (hereinafter “instant product”). However, the Nonparty Company supplied Nonparty Company with a heat equivalent to KRW 334,432,00 on the price of the said goods, and paid KRW 200,00 on the price of the said goods.

On July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant as a fraud, but the prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office decided on May 31, 2018 that the Defendant was not suspected of being prosecuted.

E. On October 31, 2017, the Defendant closed down a non-party company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 16 (including the provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) Even if the defendant is supplied with the goods of this case from the plaintiff, he/she is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiff because he/she deceivings the plaintiff in spite of the lack of intent and ability to repay the goods within the date of the promise (3 to 4 months from the date of supply).

(2) The Defendant, at the time of being supplied with the instant goods, could have sufficiently predicted that the fulfillment of the payment period for the goods is impossible or impossible due to the lack of management status at the time of being supplied with the instant goods, but has concealed this fact and entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, and has the duty of loyalty and care as a director