1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 2015, the Plaintiff, who was engaged in the clothing plant processing business under the Plaintiff’s trade name, was entrusted by the Defendant and engaged in various clothes processing, such as post-lease business, etc. Around November 2015, the Defendant supplied various clothes that the Plaintiff was processed, but the Defendant did not pay KRW 19,688,000 out of the rent processing amount of KRW 31,282,30 and paid KRW 11,594,30.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 11,594,300 won and damages for delay.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the reasoning of the judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6 (the number of paper numbers included; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the present court's response to each request from the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the National Pension Management Corporation for submission of opinions, and the whole purport of arguments, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant is the party who requested the Plaintiff to process clothes, and there

(E) In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for voluntary management of clothing with D or E, and the Defendant appears to have only been a member of the above company. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premised on this is without merit.

① The original entry note submitted by the Plaintiff is marked as “G” or “D” by the other party to the transaction (C or F). The details and the president of the transaction are also indicated as “D” or “E”.

② Examining the conversation content of the Kaample room, G indicated “representative” as “representative,” and G and H instructed the Defendant to perform the business relating to the transaction with the Plaintiff.

③ From August 2015 to February 2016, the Defendant received a total of KRW 7,540,000 from D on seven occasions, which appears to have been paid in return for the Defendant’s provision of labor.