1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues to the purport that the Defendant should pay the above supply price and its delay damages to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with machinery parts equivalent to KRW 79,347,400 (including value-added tax) in total from March 13, 2014 to May 30, 2014, via D, a business director of “C” that he/she operates.

The defendant asserts to the effect that there is no reason to respond to the plaintiff's claim since he was supplied with the above machinery parts from D, not the plaintiff, and the amount of the above supply amount has already been paid to D.

2. The claim of this case is based on the premise that the person who entered into a contract for the supply of machinery parts with the defendant is the plaintiff, and it is insufficient to recognize it by first examining all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. [In particular, the following circumstances, which can be known by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings, i.e., evidence Nos. 1, 3-7 (including each number, witness D, E, and F, and some testimonys of the plaintiff, witness D, E, and F, before the issue of this case, i.e., the defendant was not directly known, ii) was not an employee receiving regular wages from the "C" operated by the plaintiff; iii) was supplied with the machinery parts agreed to be supplied to the defendant and supplied to the defendant; iv) was resolved by D itself in the event of defective quality in the machinery parts supplied to the defendant. ④ In this process, D was in the name of the plaintiff using the plaintiff's office under the plaintiff's understanding and issued a detailed statement and tax invoice under the name of the plaintiff, and 2) was in the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant's account transfer.