1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. Party relationship 1) Plaintiff (former trade name: Co., Ltd. E and hereinafter “Plaintiff,” regardless of whether it was before or after the change

(2) The non-party D is the representative director of the non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) established for the purpose of manufacturing the glass processing and manufacturing business. The Defendant is a company established for the purpose of selling the glass processing and manufacturing business.

B. On February 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) around February 2015, C and C are engaged in business activities on the basis of the price of the goods presented by the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff pays 10% of the input amount to C in the case of deposit of the price of the goods after completing the supply of the glass products awarded by C; and (c) the tax invoice for the processed glass products produced and supplied by the Plaintiff to the ordering entity directly by the Plaintiff; and (d) the logistics center operation agreement stating that the service of the processed glass products produced and supplied by the Plaintiff shall be issued to the ordering entity by the Plaintiff; and

(2) The Defendant requested C to supply reinforced glass and double-story glass products, and the Plaintiff from March 25, 2015 to the same year.

4. By the end of 29.29, the Defendant supplied 20,767,073 glass products worth KRW 20,767,073.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, Eul's evidence No. 12, the purport of all pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The main argument of the plaintiff 1) The defendant was aware of the existence of the contract of this case and completed the final return of value-added tax in accordance with the tax invoice issued by the plaintiff. In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the defendant directly concluded a contract for supply of glass products with the plaintiff via C, a commercial agent.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the price of goods KRW 20,767,073 and damages for delay.

B. C is entrusted with the sale of products, such as glass, by the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant operational contract.