1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to pay KRW 15,454,00 for the amount of goods and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff had no fact of being supplied by the Plaintiff and the Defendant had no fact of being supplied with the amount of goods, etc. from September 27, 2016 to the Plaintiff, while the Plaintiff engaged in the transaction of supplying agricultural products, such as fish wave, etc. to the quasi-urban fishery company located in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “quasi-si fishery company”). In the course of the transaction of supplying agricultural products, such as double wave, the Plaintiff transferred the amount of goods from the Defendant and issued an electronic account statement to the Defendant. On May 27, 2017, the amount of goods unpaid as of May 27, 2017 is KRW 15,454,00.

B. The plaintiff asserts that even if the defendant is not a party to a transaction, the defendant had a quasi-agricultural fishery company run the business using the name of the defendant's business operator, and that the plaintiff, who was engaged in a transaction with the defendant's business registration certificate, had no choice but to be mistaken for the defendant's business. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the price of the goods 15,454,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff with the name of the name of the name of the name holder, the defendant has a gross negligence that the plaintiff knew of or was not aware of

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including each number if there are serial numbers) and the entire arguments as to the parties to a transaction, the Plaintiff issued an electronic invoice with the Defendant’s business registration certificate issued around June 2016, when the Plaintiff supplied quasi-agricultural and fishery products, such as chip, and issued the electronic invoice with the Defendant from June 2016, and received a remittance from the Defendant’s account, although it is recognized that the Plaintiff received a transfer of transaction amount from the Defendant’s account.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances seen in the foregoing paragraph, the foregoing.