1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the wholesale business of fishery products, etc. under the trade name of “D,” and the Defendant was engaged in the biological wholesale business under the trade name of “E” from November 20, 191 to December 31, 2007.

B. From around 1991 to December 2007, the Defendant traded to be supplied with fishery products from the Plaintiff and pay the price.

The defendant closed his business on December 31, 2007.

C. After that, C, the Defendant’s children, continued to engage in the transaction with the Plaintiff, and C, on January 9, 2013, has established “F of a stock company” and has traded with the Plaintiff in the name of the said company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. While the Plaintiff continued to engage in a transaction with the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with fishery products from July 201 to September 24, 2018 and suspended the transaction. As a result, the amount receivable as of September 24, 2018 remains in KRW 52,957,135.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding amount and the interest or delay damages from September 25, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day on which the transaction was interrupted.

B. The Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant’s closure of the “E” only after receiving a written response from the Defendant.

A person who makes a transaction with the Plaintiff is not Defendant C.

C. The defendant continues to conduct business after filing for business registration under the name of son, and even though she is engaged in business together with her family, the actual operator of F Co., Ltd. is the defendant, and the defendant is obliged to pay the outstanding amount.

3. The mere descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are insufficient to recognize the fact that the other party to the transaction between July 201 and September 24, 2018 is the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to Gap evidence No. 1, the outstanding amount claimed by the plaintiff is based on the contents of the account book.