1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the ancillary claim added by this court are all available.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a merchant who runs the business of manufacturing and processing acryliccry in the trade name of "D", and the co-defendant B of the first instance trial is a person registered as the representative of a manufacturer of electronic parts, etc. of the trade name "E" (hereinafter referred to as "the business of this case"), and the defendant is a merchant who runs a manufacturer of electronic parts, etc. of the trade name "F".

On November 2013, the Plaintiff came to know of the Defendant through the introduction of G. From November 21, 2013 to February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 140,113,490 in total amount of the supply price to E, with the supply of the goods, such as acrylic and PC processing equipment, at the request of the Defendant or G (hereinafter “instant goods”).

Around that time, the Plaintiff received KRW 24,682,70 from E, and was not paid the remainder of KRW 115,430,790 until now (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”).

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number), and the plaintiff's assertion as to the ground of claim as to the plaintiff's main claim for judgment as to the whole purport of the pleading as to the plaintiff's main claim, the plaintiff asserts that "the defendant was supplied with the goods of this case by the plaintiff as the actual operator of the company of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the price for the goods of this case and its delay damages to the plaintiff."

The defendant asserts to the effect that "the actual business operator of the instant company is not the defendant but G, and the plaintiff actually supplied the instant goods to the instant company, and the amount of the price is unclear, so it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's claim."

Judgment

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2.

The plaintiff on November 2013.