1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. According to the supply contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”), the Defendant, the other party to the instant contract, supplied a total of KRW 50,948,205 (hereinafter “instant machinery, etc.”) at the complex electric power plant, electric poles, Naju, and Sejong City construction site, and Hyundai Hasco construction site (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant construction site”) from January 2013 to June 2013. As such, the Defendant, the other party to the instant contract, shall pay the Plaintiff the price for the said machinery, etc.

B. Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) who had been engaged in construction at the construction site of this case was the other party to the contract, and the Defendant only handled the tax invoice upon Nonparty Company’s request, and thus, there is no obligation to pay the price of the instant machinery, etc.

2. We examine whether the Defendant is the other party to the instant contract.

The fact that the Plaintiff supplied the instant machinery, etc. in an aggregate amounting to KRW 50,948,205 according to the instant contract is recognized as having been stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), but further, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the same.

Rather, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) and the whole pleadings, as a director of the non-party company, E in charge of accounting affairs as an internal director of the non-party company around 2013, decided to report the purchase transaction between the defendant's representative director F and the non-party company's representative director as the purchase transaction of the non-party company. Eul ordered the non-party company's employees G from January 2013 to June 2013, and the defendant's employees H as the defendant's employee H as the defendant. The plaintiff received a request from G and H at that time.