1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, even though the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for human resources, supplied the Defendant with eight human resources belonging to the Plaintiff from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017, the Defendant did not pay KRW 18,329,080, the Defendant did not pay the service cost of KRW 18,329,080. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the service cost of KRW 18,329,080 and the delay damages therefrom

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's representative director D's husband E, who is not the plaintiff, entered into a human resources supply contract with the plaintiff's representative director D's husband E, and only paid the monthly service cost and did not enter into a human resources supply contract with the plaintiff.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 4-1 and 5 evidence Nos. 4-1 and 5 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), it is recognized that the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice of KRW 18,329,080 (including value-added tax) of the aggregate amount as an item of the production cost of India by a person supplied with the Defendant on March 31, 2017, and G, H, I, and J provide labor to the Defendant from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017, and received wages from the Plaintiff.

However, circumstances acknowledged by the respective entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, (i) the Plaintiff cancelled the approval of the above electronic tax invoice at the Defendant’s request on May 5, 2017; (ii) the Plaintiff supplied human resources to the Defendant from January 5, 2017 to February 2017; (iii) the Plaintiff issued the electronic tax invoice and maintained the relationship between the Defendant and the labor supply contract with the Defendant upon payment; (iv) G, H, I, and J, etc., supplied by the F in the Bank of Korea, continued to provide labor to the Defendant even around March 2017; (iii) the Plaintiff was established on March 29, 2017, which was established by the Defendant upon receipt of human resources supply; and (iv) the Plaintiff concluded a human resources supply contract with the Defendant as a pre-establishment preparation act.

In light of the fact that there is no circumstance to see that the LAF and the defendant succeeded to the credit and debt relationship.