1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person wholesaleing food miscellaneous products, etc., and the Defendant is a juristic person operating a general retail business (smarket business), and the Plaintiff has supplied Schlage goods to the Defendant from September 26, 201 to October 14, 2016.

B. On October 7, 2016, the Defendant determined the outstanding amount by transaction partner to transfer the business to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and confirmed the outstanding amount to be transferred to Korea. On November 14, 2016, the day immediately before the Defendant’s business is closed, the Defendant entered the outstanding amount as KRW 3 million in a written confirmation of attempted goods payment as of November 14, 2016, which is the day immediately before the Defendant’s business was closed.

C. On the top of the customer’s written confirmation of attempted crimes, the Customer’s written confirmation states that “The transaction with the Defendant shall have been made able to confirm the attempted crimes before the settlement and the other person responsible for the transaction with which the attempted attempts will be accurately entrusted shall sign the confirmation column. The confirmation of the last attempted crimes shall be signed and sealed on the confirmation column. The customer who has not received the confirmation of the last attempted crimes shall not be admitted.”

Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of KRW 3 million.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Eul's statement of evidence, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion began transactions with the Defendant since September 26, 2011, supplied goods on credit, and thereafter traded goods after the Defendant sold, and then transferred the goods to the Defendant. On October 201, 2016, the amount of sales on credit amount amounted to KRW 35,896,078.

Since the plaintiff's employee did not delegate his/her authority to confirm attempted crimes to A, it is difficult to recognize documents signed and sealed by A, and the defendant's unilateral deduction of considerable amount of employee's subsidy should not be recognized even though the defendant does not meet the requirements to deduct employee's subsidy.

3. Determination

(a) An agent for commercial activities, even if he/she does not indicate that such act is for his/her principal, shall have the effect on his/her principal, and a person delegated for commercial activities shall have the effect on his/her principal