1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 75,204 to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co. D”) are both companies with the purpose of selling and selling agricultural products.

C A around December 2016, the Defendant Company transferred all of its businesses to the Defendant Company.

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” without distinguishing C and the Defendant, except when specifically named C. (b)

From July 2013, the Plaintiff had been supplied with food materials, etc. by the Defendant with the Defendant and sold them again to the Plaintiff’s transaction partner (hereinafter “instant transaction”).

On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a letter to the Defendant stating that “The Defendant will be liable for embezzlement of the Defendant’s funds in collusion with E. D.

Then, on March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff drafted a letter to the Defendant, stating that “The obligations arising from the instant transaction against the Defendant shall be KRW 73,660,944 at present” (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings (the cause of claim in this case) by the plaintiff (the cause of claim in this case) is null and void since the plaintiff was bound to continue the transaction in this case by intimidation or coercion on the part of the defendant. (2) The plaintiff paid directly to the defendant, at the request of the defendant, the defendant's obligation by subrogation, or by using a credit card issued by the defendant under the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff paid all obligations arising from the transaction in this case.

3) Therefore, even though there is no obligation for the purchase price of goods arising from the Plaintiff’s instant transaction against the Defendant, the Defendant disputes this, thereby seeking confirmation of the absence of such obligation.

The defendant's assertion.