1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff sold aggregate equivalent to KRW 244,902,02,020 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant aggregate”). Since the Plaintiff received only KRW 40 million out of the instant aggregate purchase price, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the aggregate purchase price to the Plaintiff, as well as damages for delay.

B. The Defendant concluded a sales contract for aggregate with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), which is the person entitled to permission to collect aggregate, and concluded a sales contract for aggregate from July 31, 2013 to the continued supply of aggregate from C, and only received a tax invoice issued by C at the request of C as if the Defendant purchased aggregate from the Plaintiff, on several occasions, and the seller of the sales contract for aggregate of this case is not the Plaintiff but C.

2. Determination

A. Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

In a case where there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties concerned, the parties’ intention should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da238212, Jan. 25, 2018). (B)

In light of the above legal principles, according to the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, it is recognized that the defendant received a tax invoice as of September 30, 2016, which was issued by the plaintiff as the person to whom the defendant was supplied with the defendant, and the plaintiff received respectively the tax invoice as of April 30, 2016, which was issued by the plaintiff as the person to whom the defendant was supplied with the defendant in connection with the sale and purchase of aggregate.

However, Gap evidence 2 to 4, 9, and Eul.