1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Since the Plaintiff supplied oil equivalent to KRW 5,869,03 to the Defendant-owned vehicles at the gas station, which is the Plaintiff’s branch, from June 2012 to July 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is obligated to pay the said oil price to the Plaintiff, and that the other party who entered into a contract for oil supply with the Plaintiff was not a D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and that the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the said oil price to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff supplied oil to the defendant's vehicle at the gas station which is the branch of the plaintiff from June 2012 to July 2012. The plaintiff was found to have issued electronic tax invoices which are 5,247,05 for the total value of supply and tax on June 30, 2012, and 621,978 for the total value of supply and tax amount on July 31, 2012. Meanwhile, the plaintiff was found to have supplied the defendant with Eul evidence No. 1 to 14 (including serial number). In other words, the defendant and Eul were to transport aggregate from June 1, 2012 to be supplied with D's order, and the plaintiff was to be supplied with D's goods after being supplied with D's freight delivery and supply. The plaintiff did not appear to have received D's payment from D's actual oil supply.