1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From September 21, 2012 to November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied piping materials of KRW 40,083,835 in total at the construction site for a geothermal heating and cooling facility in Jeonnam-gun, Inc. through the employees B of the Korea FIM Co., Ltd.

(hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”). B.

The above Corporation completed the construction of E, and E sent a copy of the Defendant’s business registration certificate to B, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for KRW 40,083,835 to the Defendant on November 30, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of the claim is the party to the contract for the supply of the goods of this case, and even if the defendant did not participate in the

The defendant is jointly and severally liable with E in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act, since the name of the defendant is named by issuing the business registration certificate to E.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the statements in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, and 10 of the judgment Nos. 3, 4, 9, and 10, witness B, and E as a whole, evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant provided the goods of this case, or allowed E to operate a business by using his trade name, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The construction of the geothermal cooling and heating facility was executed by E, and there is no circumstance to find that the defendant was involved in the above construction work and the goods transaction of this case.

Although the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate that he/she was issued on September 20, 2012 by entering a person who is supplied with the goods into the “F” operated by the Defendant, there is no evidence to prove that E explicitly testified that the said written estimate is not appropriate and that the Defendant received the said written estimate.

B. In March 2012, the Defendant entered into a subcontract for the installation of a subart with the introduction of E.