1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with an aggregate of KRW 2,800,410 (hereinafter “instant goods”) including swine scrapers, cattle scrapers, etc. four times from November 27, 2015 to December 16, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay 2,80,410 won for the goods and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserted that the goods of this case were supplied by non-Plaintiff C, and the Defendant paid KRW 3.76 million to C including the price for the goods of this case.

2. Determination

A. As to who is a party to a contract in cases where an actor who entered into a related legal doctrine was engaged in a legal act in the name of another person, the intent of the actor and the other party shall be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the same intent if the actor and the other party agree. If the other party fail to agree with the intent of the actor and the other party, then the other party shall be determined in accordance with the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature of the contract, the purpose of the contract, and the process of concluding the contract.

(Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44059 Decided December 12, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da18711 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.) B.

In light of the relevant legal principles, according to the statement Nos. 1 and 3 of the Health Unit Gap (which includes each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) with respect to the instant case, the supplier of the transaction specifications submitted by the Plaintiff is indicated as the supplier of the instant goods as D (operator Plaintiff). The Defendant signed the column for receipt of the transaction specifications, and the fact that the Plaintiff registered the business as the operator of D is recognized.

However, the following circumstances are recognized by the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 and by the purport of the testimony and the whole pleading of the witness E at the court of first instance.