1. The Defendant: (a) within the scope of property inherited from the deceased D (EE, Death on December 9, 2017) and KRW 16,655,357.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells pesticides and materials in the trade name of “F seed and seedling company,” and the Defendant is a net D who has been engaged in agriculture in Hongcheon-gun G in Gangwon-do.

B. By September 13, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied pesticides and materials to the same D, and the Plaintiff did not receive 38,862,500 won at present.

C. The network D died on December 9, 2017, and the Defendant, children, H, and C inherited their rights and obligations according to the statutory inheritance share ratio.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff supplied the above pesticide and materials to the Defendant, or that the Defendant is liable to pay the above unpaid price and damages for delay, since it is a pesticide price used to set up a farmer’s house jointly with the husband D, such as the Plaintiff’s transfer of the same agricultural business entity and the Plaintiff’s partial payment.

B. The defendant asserts that whether the defendant is the debtor of the price of goods supplied by the plaintiff is not the debtor on the network D, but the defendant did not know whether the plaintiff had an obligation to the plaintiff merely aided part of the farmer's company.

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including paper numbers), not only the network D but also the name of the defendant was stated in the plaintiff's transaction statement as a customer in the plaintiff's transaction statement, and also the plaintiff's name on April 10, 2017 and the same year in the defendant's name.

9.5. Each of the 10 million won was remitted. However, it is difficult to regard the Defendant as a party to the instant credit transaction only on the sole basis of the fact that the above transaction statement was prepared by the Plaintiff for the management of credit payment, and that the Defendant’s name was written therein. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant and the deceased have become a party to the instant credit transaction on the ground that they were transferred to the Defendant’s name between husband and wife. Rather, upon examining the evidence No. 5, the agricultural business entity’s management is able to view it.