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. The Plaintiff asserts that he/she supplied the Defendant with a new market value equivalent to a total of KRW 16,446,00 (hereinafter “instant goods”) from June 29, 2015 to April 25, 2016, and filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the unpaid goods, and the Defendant did not have received the instant goods from the Plaintiff.

2. We examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of arguments to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was the party to whom the goods of this case were supplied since the plaintiff paid part of the price of the goods of this case. However, the plaintiff's statement of transaction or quotation, etc. merely indicate "C" as the party to whom the goods of this case were supplied, without any indication of the defendant's name or personal information, location of the business place, etc., the plaintiff first considered the defendant at the date of pleading. The plaintiff did not know the defendant at all before the date of pleading. The plaintiff asserted that "C" was the business operator of "C", and the plaintiff did not submit any evidence as to the plaintiff's business registration, etc., and since February 16, 2012 to December 31, 2014, the plaintiff's request for the supply of part of the goods of this case was not related to the plaintiff's new supply of the goods of this case's deposit account.