1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Since the Plaintiff supplied oil equivalent to KRW 6,297,895 to the Defendant-owned vehicle at the 2nd gas station, which is the Plaintiff’s branch from June 2012 to July 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above oil price of KRW 6,297,895 and the delay compensation therefor. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the other party who entered into a oil supply contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “B”) was not the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the said oil price to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff supplied oil to the motor vehicle owned by the defendant at the tax base station 2, which is the branch of the plaintiff from June 2012 to July 2012. The plaintiff was issued an electronic tax invoice which is 5,568,966, which is the total value and amount of supply on June 30, 2012, and an electronic tax invoice which is 728,929, which is the total value and amount of supply on July 31, 2012, and the amount of supply on July 31, 2012, but it is acknowledged that the plaintiff was supplied to the defendant. Meanwhile, the plaintiff was supplied to the defendant with B's oil in light of the following circumstances, namely, the defendant and B, by transporting aggregate and sand as dump trucks, and it appears that the plaintiff was supplied with B's oil supply cost after receiving the order, and the plaintiff was supplied with B's oil supply cost after receiving the order.