1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the price of KRW 31,731,850, including food materials, and damages for delay thereof, since the Plaintiff entered into a product supply agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant who operates a restaurant with the name of “B store” and supplied food materials to the Defendant from May 2016.

2. Determination

A. In view of the fact that the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable proof that the content of the document is denied, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized. However, even if it is a disposal document, if it is proved that it is forged and the authenticity is not recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document cannot be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34666 Decided September 6, 2002, etc.). The Plaintiff stated that “The supply period under this Agreement shall be from May 1, 2016 to April 31, 2017” in Article 2 of the Evidence No. 5 of the Plaintiff, “The supply period under this Agreement shall be from May 1, 2016 to April 31, 2017,” but the said “the 31st day of April 2017” appears to be a clerical error of “the 30th day of April 2017.”

No. 5, stating the content of supplying agricultural products, food materials, and other related goods to the Defendant during the supply period, shall not be used as evidence since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the Defendant’s stamp image part. The entries in subparagraphs 2 through 4 alone are insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 as well as the overall purport of testimony and pleadings by the witness C, namely, the Defendant is under the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D shop No. 105 (hereinafter “instant store”).