1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 2015, the Plaintiff was supplied with UPS (Unn inter-concrut Posingly, powerless power supply) and IP camera (hereinafter “instant goods”) from Company B (hereinafter “B”), which is substantially operated by Company B (hereinafter “B”), and paid KRW 164 million for the instant goods in B on June 23, 2015.

B. Meanwhile, on June 26, 2015, an electronic tax invoice was issued and approved as of June 26, 2015, stating that the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant, as to the instant goods, purchased the instant goods from the Plaintiff on June 12, 2015, and sold the instant goods to the CBB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CB”) on June 24, 2015, and on June 26, 201, respectively, to the CBB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CB”), and issued a tax invoice with the content of CBB and DBs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, on June 26, 2015, the plaintiff supplied the goods of this case to the defendant and transferred them by the method of possession amendment, the defendant is obligated to pay 172 million won to the plaintiff the price of the goods of this case.

As to this, the defendant, upon A's request, approved a tax invoice as if he purchased the goods of this case from the plaintiff, and issued a tax invoice as if he sold the goods of this case to CBB and DBs, the transaction partner of the plaintiff, but did not actually receive the goods of this case from the plaintiff.

3. The fact that the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s electronic tax invoice regarding the instant goods and issued a tax invoice stating that it sold the instant goods to the CBB and the DB. However, such circumstance alone is acknowledged as seen earlier, the instant goods supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.