1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in meat wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “C”.

B. Around July 2014, the Defendant engaged in the business of operating the network F (hereinafter “the network”) and the above restaurant after completing business registration as to the restaurant in the name of “E” located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

C. Around August 2015, the signboard of the said restaurant was changed to “G”, and the Plaintiff supplied Korea-style rain equivalent to KRW 28,056,50 to the said restaurant from August 17, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

(G) The facts that there is no dispute over the restaurant after the signboard was changed (hereinafter “G”); the entries in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the claim that the Defendant operated the restaurant of this case, the Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant directly operated the restaurant of this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay only the price that the Plaintiff supplied to the restaurant of this case. However, the evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including the land number, hereinafter the same shall apply) is asserted.

The testimony of the witness H is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant directly operated the restaurant of this case. Rather, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In full view of the entries in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 of this case, witness H’s testimony, fact-finding results in the fact-finding results and the overall purport of oral argument as to the Dongsan Island of this court, the deceased’s signboards of the restaurant of this case are altered to “G” and operated the restaurant of this case solely from the time of changing the signboards of this case to “G,” and the Defendant can only recognize the fact that the above restaurant operated the restaurant of this case by paying part of the unpaid benefits to the employees of the restaurant of this case after the deceased’s death and making a report on the closure of business. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is liable for the performance of union obligations is not accepted.