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 a person engaged in the manufacturing of other public machinery with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person who conducts the manufacturing business with the trade name of “D.”

B. On July 31, 2017, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply a wood scrap 120,000,000 won to the Cultural Heritage Administration. On August 8, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply the wood scrap 100,000 won with the trade name “F” from G operating the individual business.

C. The Plaintiff supplied the parts of the said wood scrap machine upon receiving a request from G for the processing thereof, and the processing fee not received from G by December 26, 2017 was KRW 30,000,000.

In addition, on October 31, 2017, according to the Defendant’s request for processing, the Plaintiff processed ham machine parts and supplied them to the Defendant. On November 1, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 7,500,000 out of the price of KRW 15,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was assigned KRW 22,00,000 out of the remainder claim KRW 30,000,000,000 owed by G to the Defendant according to the goods production contract between the Defendant and G on August 8, 2017, and that the remainder amount of KRW 9,00,000 exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on October 31, 2017. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 31,00,000 in total to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone that the part of the claim for the transfer of claim amount is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant consented to direct payment, or G notifies the Defendant that it transferred the remainder claim to the Plaintiff under the goods manufacturing contract as of August 8, 2017, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Furthermore, according to the respective statements in subparagraphs B through B (including each number), there is a defect in the timber crushing machine manufactured and supplied by G to the Defendant.