1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Basic facts

A. Upon receipt of a request from C to supply construction materials (Class 2 propelled Haakopt) from C to D D works sites in Chungcheongnam-si, the Plaintiff supplied 5,643,00 won of construction materials on June 27, 2017.

B. On July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the said goods.

On August 11, 2017, the Seoul Rehabilitation Court, in the proceeding of the instant lawsuit, rendered a decision on the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings against the Defendant under 2017 Gohap10129, and deemed the Defendant’s representative director B as the custodian.

(hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”). C.

The plaintiff in the above rehabilitation procedure A.

5,643,00 won for the goods of this case was reported to the Defendant as the amount of the claim against the Defendant. The custodian raised an objection to the total amount of the claims reported by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff followed the procedure of taking a lawsuit against the administrator within the statutory period stipulated in Articles 172 and 170(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and changed the purport of this case to the claim for the confirmation of the rehabilitation claim from the claim to the claim for performance.

The Seoul Rehabilitation Court decided to terminate the rehabilitation procedure of this case on March 26, 2018, and the defendant took over the lawsuit of this case again.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant’s employee C to supply construction materials at the Defendant’s Dwork site, and supplied construction materials equivalent to KRW 5,643,00 on June 27, 2017. 2) The construction site was the Defendant’s office (container) at the above construction site, and C introduced himself as the Defendant’s employee.

In addition, C also shows that the Plaintiff was named as the Defendant employee.

3) If C is not an employee of the defendant, the defendant is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, or for the employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act. B. The defendant's assertion 1) is among D Corporation.