1. The Defendant’s KRW 493,505,290 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from October 3, 2018 to October 25, 2018.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with earth and chickens, etc. from May 2, 2011 to September 2, 2018. Even if the Defendant is not the counterparty, the Defendant agreed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to assume the obligation to pay the price of the goods, such as earth and chickens supplied to C or D, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 493,50,290 out of the price of the goods.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 493,505,290 won for the unpaid goods and damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff and the parties involved in the transaction of goods, such as Saturdays from May 2, 201 to February 2014, and C from February 2, 2014, after C established D Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of goods, such as Saturdays, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff was supplied with earth and chickens from the Plaintiff.

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 the event that there is any difference in the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties, the parties’ interpretation of the intent is at issue, the parties’ reasonable interpretation in accordance with logical and empirical rules should be based on a comprehensive consideration of the content of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da25699, Jan. 17, 2019).

The following facts and circumstances revealed in full view of Gap evidence 6 and 7 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness E's testimony, i.e., the plaintiff in his name before the defendant also establishes Eul Co., Ltd.: