1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the District Court from October 23, 2015 with respect to KRW 21,241,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is also the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) from February 14, 2014 to March 12, 2014 upon the Plaintiff’s request from B.

(B) supply steel products worth KRW 97,278,500 at the construction site of the steel farm (hereinafter referred to as “first assertion”).

(2) B) The Defendant Company entered into a contract for the re-supply of steel products with the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant Company.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the price under the contract for the construction of steel products entered into between B and B as the name truster of B.

(hereinafter referred to as “Secondary Claim 3”) Defendant Company D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) is a construction business chain company (hereinafter referred to as “D”) substantially operated by C, a user of B.

() A tax invoice for the construction work ordered by both D and the Defendant issued a tax invoice in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant Company agreed to pay the price directly to the material supplier. This is a contract for a third party as stipulated in Article 539(1) of the Civil Act. As such, the Defendant, who is a third party, is liable to pay the price to the Plaintiff insofar as the Defendant expressed his/her intent to make profits by delivering a copy of the instant complaint to the Defendant (hereinafter “third claim”).

B. (B) Determination 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself is the person who requested the Plaintiff to supply materials.

B In order to ensure the validity of the material supply contract that the Plaintiff entered into with the Defendant, B must have the authority to act on behalf of the Defendant in connection with the above contract. There is no evidence to prove this point.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. As to the 2nd argument, it is not sufficient to recognize the above facts solely on the basis of whether the Defendant permitted B to use the Defendant’s trade name in relation to the contract for the re-supply of steel products concluded with the Plaintiff, and on the basis of the statement of evidence No. 1, there is no evidence

Rather, Gap evidence 2, 3's evidence 1 to 7, and witness B.