1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a company engaged in the iron retail business, and the defendants build multi-household housing in the Hanam-si F.

The Defendants entered into a new construction contract for multi-family house with H using the trade name of “G”.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of steel bars to be used in the above multi-family house with H, and supplied steel bars.

On the other hand, H suspended the construction of the above new construction on or around February 2017, and terminated contact with the Plaintiff, Defendants, and their employees.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff asserted that Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, and 3-, witness I's testimony, and the ground for a claim of the whole pleadings is established under an implied supply contract, and the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff delivered directly to the multi-family house, the owner of the building, and the defendants did not raise any objection. Since the defendants directly paid part of the goods through their own account, the contract for the supply of implied steel bars was established between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants are obligated to pay the plaintiff the price of the goods.

Judgment

The fact that the Plaintiff supplied the steel bars to be used in the multi-family house as the owner of the building is as seen earlier.

However, in full view of the statements in subparagraph 1-1-5 of the evidence No. 1-5 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness I, the Defendants permitted H to use the Defendants’ account in relation to the construction of a multi-family house under the name of the Defendants, and H can only be recognized that the Defendants, while entirely managing the accounts in the name of the Defendants, let the Defendants deposit the construction price into the said account and then repaid the Plaintiff with the obligations for the payment of the remainder of the payment to the Plaintiff as part of the said money. The above fact of recognition is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendants constituted an implied supply contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion.