1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 11,075,000 for the Plaintiff and its related thereto on November 11, 2015.

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as the primary claim, and the Plaintiff asserts the following as the payment for the goods. (A) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 24,900,000 (the amount obtained by deducting KRW 1,50,000,000, which was paid from B around October 9, 2015 from the price for the goods) by receiving an order for software equivalent to KRW 26,40,00 on December 17, 2014 (hereinafter “instant goods”).

B) Even if the Plaintiff did not have the right to place an order against B, who is the employee of the Defendant requesting the Plaintiff, even if he did not have the right to place an order for the goods, the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds to believe that B had the right to place an order for the goods of this case, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the price for the goods of this case to the Plaintiff in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act. 2) The Defendant did not have ordered the goods as alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, there is no obligation to pay the price for the goods of this case to the Plaintiff. (B) It is extremely exceptional for the Plaintiff to place an order for the goods of this amounting to KRW 26,40,00 without the Defendant’s size, the public tender procedure in the form of transaction, and the supply contract for the goods, etc., without having been known to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff was well aware that

B. As to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of the goods of this case with respect to the claim for the payment of the goods under the goods supply contract, the testimony of the witness C alone is recognized to have entered into a contract for the supply of goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.