1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the amount equivalent to KRW 9,200,000 by-products of cattle from October 6, 2016 to November 22, 2016. The Plaintiff supplied the amount equivalent to KRW 34,440,000 by-products of pigs from October 4, 2016 to December 5, 2016. However, the Plaintiff received only KRW 10,00,000 from the Defendant on October 20, 2016, and the Defendant paid the unpaid amount of KRW 33,640,00.

In addition, from October 4, 2016 to December 5, 2016, the Defendant disposed of by-products without permission, and the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, requested the disposal company to pay KRW 7,103,250 for the disposal price.

From October 2016 to March 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,052,100, which occurred by using the Plaintiff’s freezing in lieu of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,640,00, KRW 7,103,250, KRW 5,052,10, and KRW 45,795,350, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is without merit since the Defendant, not the Defendant, was introduced to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant: (a) around February 2016, prepared a sales contract for by-products with the Plaintiff and Korea-Japan-do; and (b) did not affix the Plaintiff’s seal thereto.

(2) On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the deposit. (2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare a written contract in which the seals of the Plaintiff and the Defendant were affixed until July 2016.

3) Around September 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to send a person who will treat by-products to the Defendant for a demonstration axis. The Defendant introduced D, which was scheduled to accept a contract with the Plaintiff when the contract is performed, to the extent that the contract was performed. (4) On October 4, 2016, the transaction was conducted between slaughter and by-products, and the transaction was conducted in a quantity similar to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

5 The defendant on October 20, 2016 additionally 10,000 at the request of the plaintiff on October 20, 200.