1. The defendant shall pay 56,360,820 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from June 17, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 3, evidence 4-1 to 7, evidence 5, and evidence 2.

The plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of drug wholesale business.

B. Around September 2012, the trade name was “B hospital”, the name was “A”, the opening date was “ September 1, 2012”, the location of the business was “Yan-gu, Ansan-si C,” and the type was registered as “a hospital”.

C. On September 4, 2012, the Defendant opened a business-favored general deposit account at a national bank in the name of “A (B hospital”).”

From June 27, 2013 to November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied drugs to B Hospital, and the amount was KRW 56,960,820, and the electronic tax invoice, “B Hospital A,” each of which was the person who received the supply of the said drugs from June 30, 2013 to November 30, 2013, was issued.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff supplied the hospital B with the drugs that constitute the total of 56,960,820 won and received 600,000 won out of the price. Thus, the defendant, the representative of the hospital B, is obligated to pay the plaintiff 56,360,820 won and delay damages.

The plaintiff supplied drugs to the defendant who is the representative of the business registration as the founder of the B Hospital, and did not know about the relationship of partnership within the B Hospital.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with D and embezzled large amounts of money while operating the B Hospital after having registered its business in the name of the Defendant without the Defendant’s consent.

The defendant did not engage in the drug transaction with the plaintiff, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff supplied the drug.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unreasonable.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition, the defendant's business is the defendant's business in relation to the outside.