1. The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

A. The Defendant’s Suwon District Court 2018 Gohap 11773.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is the same as the pertinent column of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second half of the judgment of the court of first instance is "3, 10, 11 of the evidence" of the second 8-party 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the issuance is made," and "the issuance is made (hereinafter referred to as "the seizure and collection order of the claim in this case")," respectively.

2. As to the claim for the supply of goods to the non-party company (hereinafter “the claim for the supply of goods in this case”), the Plaintiff reverted the claim for the supply of goods in this case to the Plaintiff before the seizure and collection order was issued

The argument is asserted.

However, the circumstances that recognize the overall purport of the oral argument in Gap evidence No. 4, i.e., the "supply" means "the bringing of goods ordered at a contracted place". According to the contract of this case, E is supplied by households, etc. from the non-party company and instead the non-party company acquires the price of goods to Eul. ② Even according to the plaintiff's assertion, E is not the price of goods from the non-party company, but the sale of the non-party company's products to the consumer, and is only entitled to the rebates or the service fee under the contract of this case (see, e.g., written preparations prepared by the non-party company on October 18, 2019). ③ In light of the language and text of the collection order of this case, in light of the text of the collection order of this case

In light of the fact that Gap's evidence No. 9 and each fact-finding reply to the non-party company of the first instance court is insufficient to recognize that the claim for the supply of this case belongs to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the supply of goods of this case is based on the premise that it belongs to the plaintiff.