1. The Defendant’s KRW 112,268,404 as well as 5% per annum from September 24, 2019 to August 25, 2020 as to the Plaintiff.

1. Issues of the instant case

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion asserts that the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant and supplied the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 137,382,260, and sought payment of KRW 137,381,260 and damages for delay.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the contracting party who entered into a goods supply contract with the plaintiff is not a local subsidiary C of the Philippines and D of the Vietnam, and the defendant is not an individual of the defendant, so the defendant is not obligated to pay the goods.

B. According to the key issue of the instant case, the key issue of the instant case is whether the parties to the instant contract concluded a goods supply contract with the Plaintiff and received the goods are the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. On December 13, 2016, ED 1,83,872 2, 201.10 on January 10, 2017, G 12,906, 047 April 17, 2017, G 12,906, 74. 7. 8, 206, G 17. 7. 8, 206, G 17. 8, 206, G 17. 4. 7. 8, 206, G 17. 4. 7. 8, 206, G 17. 3, 206, G 17. 4. 7. 7, 206, G 17. 4. 7. 8, 206, G 261, 9726. 6, 307

(hereinafter “instant supply of goods”) . [Grounds for recognition] . Each entry in the evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings

B. The issue of who the party to the relevant legal doctrine is one of the parties involved in the contract is the interpretation of the intent.

If there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties and the interpretation of the intention of the parties, the contents of the juristic act.