1. The Defendant’s KRW 290,349,440 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 21, 2016 to September 27, 2017.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On January 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a raw milk supply contract with the Defendant and supplied raw milk to the Defendant from that time until October 20, 2016. The Defendant did not pay KRW 290,349,440 out of the above raw milk price to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the unpaid crude oil price of KRW 290,349,440 and damages for delay.

B. The company that entered into a contract for raw milk supply with the Defendant is not the Defendant, but C (hereinafter “C”), and C is a separate company that differs from the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the raw milk price to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11-13, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number), and witness D's testimony and pleading, the following facts may be acknowledged.

1) The Plaintiff is a person engaged in livestock farming business under the trade name “F” in Bocheon City E, and the Defendant is a company with the purpose of wholesale, retail, export and import, etc. of milk products in Ischeon City G (hereinafter “Defendant company”).

C is a company with the purpose of manufacturing, wholesale, export, and import, etc. of milk products at H in Boh City, and C is a company with the objective of producing milk in C, producing sets in the Defendant company, and the head office is the general headquarters of the above two companies.

I is the representative director of the defendant company C and the head office of the above two companies.

3) On December 24, 2015, prior to the conclusion of a raw milk supply contract, I stated to the Plaintiff on December 24, 2015, that “Korea company is in fact and age, and the Plaintiff’s raw milk supplied is used by the Defendant company, not C, but by the Defendant company, and the total amount is responsible for the aggregate amount.” (iv) The Defendant company entered into an accounting and document with the relationship in which the Defendant company did not obtain a milk collection business license, and entered into the Defendant company as a result of the Plaintiff’s receipt of a milk collection business license.