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.

1. Basic facts

A. On the trade name of “C”, the Plaintiff engaged in the gold manufacturing business, which was commissioned from March 2013 to January 2014 from “F (the name of the G’s business operator is H, but the actual operator is F, although the G’s business operator’s name is F’s wife) with the trade name of “G”, carried out the gold manufacturing business from “C”.

B. In the name of “D”, the Defendant, upon F’s request, consented to the issuance of a tax invoice with respect to the transaction between the Plaintiff described in paragraph (a) and F, and accordingly, the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice (total amount of KRW 101,803,812) in the Defendant’s future regarding the price of the instant gold over 11 times from March 30, 2013 to January 29, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff completed all of the above-mentioned gold operations for which the tax invoice was issued, and received part of the payment from F or the Defendant, but did not receive KRW 32,105,655 among them.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 11, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 and 5, part of Gap witness E in the first instance trial, and the purport of the whole of the pleadings and arguments

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant and F, upon operating “D” and “G” as the partnership business, are in charge of the production of malicious dust and the Defendant was in charge of trade. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 32,105,655 to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff entered into and entered into a contract with the Defendant for malicious dust through F. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid amount of KRW 32,105,655 to the Plaintiff. 2) Part of the witness E of the first instance court’s testimony and the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to issue a tax invoice with the Defendant to the Plaintiff who is supplied with the transaction between F and the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant and F have operated “D” and “G” as a partnership business solely on the ground that they directly paid or some of the proceeds.