1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is selectively asserted as follows, and the Plaintiff seeks payment against the Defendant of the money stated in the claim.

From April 23, 2013 to June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff, as a contracting party, sought payment of the unpaid balance out of the purchase price of the goods traded with the Defendant from April 23, 2013 to August 22, 2018. However, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for payment of the price of the goods, which was supplied from April 30, 2017 to April 15, 2019, based on the following facts: (a) the final transaction date indicated in each electronic tax invoice (Evidence A 2-1 to 17) submitted by the Plaintiff, was the same as June 30, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the relevant goods from April 23, 2013 to June 30, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the remaining goods price and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. Article 24 of the Commercial Code provides that a person who actually received goods from the Plaintiff is not the Defendant but D, even if he/she operates his/her business in the name of D, the Plaintiff mispers the Defendant as the business owner and supplied goods. In other words, the Defendant used the same factory office as E, issued a tax invoice in the name of the Defendant regarding transaction with the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request, and issued the tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff, and made payment in the name of the Defendant in the name of the purchase price. 2) The Plaintiff trusted the appearance of the Plaintiff to mislead the Defendant as the business owner, thereby misleading the Defendant.

goods as described in the subsection.