1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.

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

1. Case summary

A. The Plaintiff is a company that supplied raw materials to ELMT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ELT”).

B. When LIM was unable to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff, on February 2, 2015, ELM prepared a performance assurance with the Plaintiff as set out below, and ordered the delivery of the goods produced by it upon receiving an order from the existing business partners, and decided that the goods will be paid to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notification”). LIM promises to change the transaction method with the Plaintiff from the issuance of the tax invoice in January 2015 to the method of settling the products produced by LIM through the resale and settlement after the purchase of existing raw materials.

C. The Defendant ordered LIM from January 2015 to be supplied with the goods equivalent to KRW 59,731,870 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid only KRW 22,286,770 out of the goods price to the Plaintiff, and did not pay the remainder of the goods price to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 3, each entry of Gap evidence 5-1 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a contract that the Plaintiff purchased from ELM and sold to the Defendant, and is concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the remaining goods to the plaintiff.

Even if the parties to the instant sales contract were to be LIM, LIM transferred the claim for the amount of goods to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant implicitly consented to the transfer of the amount of goods to the Plaintiff, and thus, is obliged to pay the remaining amount to the Plaintiff, the transferee of the claim for the amount of goods.

B. First of all, we examine the parties to the instant sales contract as to the claim for the price of goods.

The above-mentioned evidences are all the arguments.