1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who engages in the wholesale and retail business of computer parts with the trade name of “E”, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells computers and peripheral devices.

B. On January 24, 2018, the Plaintiff issued the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, copy of resident registration certificate, and business registration certificate to F, and on January 24, 2018, a goods supply contract with the Defendant that E would be provided with goods, such as computers and peripheral devices, from the Defendant for three years during the contract period (No. 1; hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”), and the Plaintiff’s seal imprint was affixed thereon.

C. On February 2, 2018, F issued an order using one’s member ID and e-mail address (G) with the goods equivalent to KRW 9,903,920 (hereinafter “instant goods”) on the online shopping mall operated by the Defendant, and entered the client’s trade name into E and the addressee’s address into E, respectively. The F requested the Defendant to receive the visit and received the instant goods directly.

As of February 2, 2018, the Defendant, as of February 2, 2018, issued an electronic tax invoice with the supplier’s supplier’s KRW 9,903,920 with the total amount of KRW 9,903,920 as the e-mail address. On May 29, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff content-certified mail seeking the payment of the instant goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s goods supply contract of this case is forged by misappropriation of the Plaintiff’s seal impression, seal impression, copy of resident registration certificate, and business registration certificate upon request from the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s personal entrepreneur E’s corporate entrepreneur conversion business.

Therefore, this case against the defendant.