1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a company that supplies food materials in the school, and the Defendant and the Defendant agreed to supply food materials on behalf of the Plaintiff from June 13, 2016 to June 30 of the same month on behalf of the Plaintiff, and on June 12, 2016, delivered to the Defendant the goods equivalent to KRW 55,609,020 for the payment of the food materials to be generated in the future.

However, since the defendant did not supply food materials to schools in accordance with the above agreement, it is necessary to return the amount equivalent to the above price of the goods to the plaintiff.

2. On the basis of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff delivered inventory goods to the Defendant in order to secure the payment of food materials that the Defendant would pay in the future, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the number of branch numbers), the defendant supplied the plaintiff with goods equivalent to KRW 37,784,300 from May 3, 2016 to May 31, 2016, and issued a tax invoice of KRW 37,784,300 to the plaintiff on May 31, 2016. The plaintiff entered into a credit transfer contract with the defendant on June 8, 2016 that "the defendant transfers the plaintiff's claim of KRW 156,12,757 to the plaintiff for the repayment of the price of the goods already supplied to the plaintiff." On June 12, 2016, the plaintiff seems to have delivered the plaintiff's goods in custody to the defendant on June 12, 2016 by preparing a certificate of inventory that "the delivery of the goods in custody should be made part of the payment for the remaining goods."

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.