1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On January 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which the Plaintiff purchases 14 kinds of five products, including SSS CREW NEC T Shis (hereinafter “instant contract”) from the Defendant [or B Co.Ltd (hereinafter “B”) with a company identical to the Defendant.

) The Plaintiff rescinded the contract on August 12, 2014, as the price for the goods was 74,383.5 US dollars ($80,073,837 US dollars as of November 4, 2014). Of Titts 47,276 supplied by the Defendant, 31,703 of Titts delivered by the Defendant was inconsistent with the product list and the kind and quantity initially sent by the Defendant. The remainder of 15,573 US dollars was defective easily. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the price for the goods to the Plaintiff KRW 80,073,837.

Even if the Defendant is not a party to the instant contract, the Defendant should be held liable as the nominal lender, as it permits B to use his name and operate his business.

B. The party to the contract of this case is the clothes B located in Bangladesh, a company separate from the defendant, and thus cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

2. First of all, we examine whether the other party to the contract of this case is the defendant and B.

who is the party to the contract is a matter of interpretation of the party involved.

The interpretation of expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating the intent, and in the case where the contents of a contract are written between the parties to the contract in writing, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating the intent should be reasonably interpreted according to the contents of the document regardless of the parties' internal intent, even though it is not written. The Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5122 Decided June 30, 1995; 200Da27923 Decided October 6, 2000.