1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. According to C’s proposal to the effect that “If Ichips are purchased from B for 2,00 won per opening and are supplied to the Defendant for 2,300 won per opening, the Plaintiff may get a 15% margin.” On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased ICchips from B for 9,900,000 won (=45,000 x 2,000 won per opening) and then issued a tax invoice under the Defendant’s name on April 15, 2015 (i.e., 103,50,000 won per opening (=45,000 x 2,300 x 2,300 x value-added tax).”

(hereinafter “instant No. 1 transaction”). (b)

On April 23, 2015, in accordance with C’s proposal to purchase 60,00 IC chips from the Jin Employment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Lin Employment”), and supply 2,250 won to the Defendant, the Defendant paid 6,4350,00 won (i.e., 30,000 won x 1,950 won) on April 23, 2015 (i.e., 30,00 won x 1,950 won) for each of the remaining 30,00 won on April 30, 2015 (i.e., re-acquisition by the Plaintiff after payment by the Esco) to the Defendant through C, which separately supplied 135,00,000 won (i.e., 62,250 won x value-added tax) to Defendant on April 29, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant No. 2 transaction” and “each of the instant transactions” in this case, including the transactions in the above A and B.

As above, the Defendant permitted C to conduct business using its trade name, and thus, is obligated to pay the price of goods to the Plaintiff as the nominal lender pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

In addition, since the defendant paid a business registration certificate, etc. to C and made it traded in its name, it is liable for the expression agency pursuant to Article 125 of the Civil Code.

Even if not, the defendant does not raise any objection to the issuance of each tax invoice issued by the plaintiff, so the defendant ratified each of the transactions in this case.

Therefore, the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 238,500,000 = 103,500.