The judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of alcoholic beverage sales business on October 7, 1976, and the Defendant is a person who, on September 5, 2017, operated a restaurant with the trade name of D from the Goyang-si C and the first floor in Gyeyang-si, Yongsan-si (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) on September 5, 2017, closed the restaurant on August 8, 2018.

B. The Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F and D restaurant located in the first floor from September 22, 2016 to April 1, 2018, and had a claim for an attempted amount of KRW 5,347,000.

(c)

From April 2, 2018 to July 30, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied a total of KRW 4,673,400 to the Defendant who operates the instant restaurant. During the said period, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 4,806,700 from the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff E is the Defendant’s woman G’s shesheshel, and between E and the Defendant was in the same business as the instant restaurant, etc., and the Plaintiff was the representative of E.

H On April 1, 2018, the Defendant supplied alcoholic beverages to the instant restaurant from April 2, 2018 on the condition that the outstanding amount of KRW 5,347,000, not later than April 1, 2018, was accepted.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to additionally pay to the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of KRW 5,347,00 and the outstanding amount of KRW 341,300 incurred from April 2, 2018 to August 27, 2018, to the Plaintiff KRW 5,68,300 and the delayed damages.

B. Defendant E operated

H The instant restaurant operated by the Defendant is not entirely related to the D restaurant located in H and the instant restaurant, and there is no room for the Defendant to accept the outstanding amount of KRW 5,347,000 against the Plaintiff.

In addition, while operating the restaurant of this case, the defendant paid all liquor amounts supplied by the plaintiff during the operating period.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Determination

A. The defendant was the representative of E

H The D restaurant located on April 2018.