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 asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the price for the article above to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff supplied the article in question to the defendant who operates the sales business of the article in question with the price for the article in question 39,532,470.

B. As to the above, the defendant's price for the goods claimed by the plaintiff is about the goods supplied by the defendant to October 2004, which was before the defendant's husband closes down "C", and the defendant registered the business with the trade name "D" on May 20, 2009 and received goods from the plaintiff in cash after June 2009, so the plaintiff's claim is unjust.

C. The plaintiff asserts that the "D" operated by the defendant is replaced by only the trade name of the "C" operated by the defendant's husband, and that the substance is identical to both. Thus, the defendant is also liable to pay the existing price for the goods.

2. The Plaintiff’s statements on the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff’s alleged goods to the Defendant on credit. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The Defendant’s “D” operated by the Defendant does not have any evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s husband was identical with that of the Defendant’s husband, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.