1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Evidence A Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, 3, and 10-1, 10-2:

On December 21, 2005, a stock company A (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) is a company incorporated Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D at the seat of its head office for the purpose of gold-type manufacturing business, weapons manufacturing business, and gun coal manufacturing business, and the defendant was a company established on December 12, 2013 for the purpose of mutual name security business, security-related equipment, system manufacturing, sales, etc. of the original corporation E, and the non-party F acquired 980,000 shares of the Defendant Company from G on July 9, 2015 (48%) and was appointed as the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. As of February 28, 2015, Nonparty Company issued an electronic tax invoice with the same content on the same day on the following day: (a) the supply value of the water delivery and crushing machine set at KRW 120 million, value-added tax amount of KRW 12 million; and (b) the electronic tax invoice was issued.

C. On October 28, 2016, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, Nonparty Company was decided to commence rehabilitation proceedings in the rehabilitation case of Seoul Central District Court 2016 Gohap10253, and the Plaintiff, the representative director of Nonparty Company, was appointed as a legal administrator.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the instant claim.

A non-party company entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods, which shall be KRW 10,00,000 (including value-added tax) around December 2014, and KRW 132,00,000 (including value-added tax) and deliver and complete the contract to the Defendant on March 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above goods to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant did not conclude a contract for the supply of goods between the non-party company and the non-party company, and the tax invoice of this case is issued falsely, and even if the contract for the supply was concluded, it is a false declaration of conspiracy.