1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In the trade name of “C”, the fact that the Plaintiff, who runs the water storage business, supplied the water storage unit to the Defendant (the appointed party; hereinafter “Defendant”) who was engaged in the water storage and sale business in the name of “E” in Gwangju North-gu by up to 2004, that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 29,694,40 out of the price, may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 29,694,40, out of the price, by gathering the entire purport of the pleadings in the items in Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 1 and 3 (including

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 29,694,100 won to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

B. On the other hand, the plaintiff is the above A.

Defendant et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant et al.”) was jointly supplied with the Defendant with the goods referred to in paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant et al.”) and even after having registered the business of “F” in the name of the designated person in Gwangju North-gu D around February 2, 2005, the Defendant et al. continued to be jointly supplied with the Plaintiff until January 27, 201, and the Plaintiff was supplied with the water storage unit by the Plaintiff.

The author argues that the goods price of the subsection was confirmed and that the contract was promised to pay the above obligation.

However, only the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number) are described above A.

the goods of this subsection have been supplied jointly with the Defendant

After or after around 2005, the defendant et al. is jointly supplied by the plaintiff and the defendant et al. are supplied with the water storage unit.

It is insufficient to recognize that the goods have been promised to pay the price of the goods under this paragraph, and there is no other evidence to prove the above assertion.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

2. The defendant's assertion of the defendant is judged as to the above 1-A.

Since the price of the goods in this paragraph claims that the extinctive prescription period has expired, the extinctive prescription shall expire if the claim for the price of the goods and the price of the goods sold by the producer and merchant is not exercised for three years.