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 manufacturing company, such as rollers and clothes, and the Defendant received goods manufactured by the Plaintiff and sold them to small wholesalers, and the Defendant had a continuous transaction relationship until March 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. The transaction between the original Defendant and the Plaintiff was conducted by ordering the goods ordered by the Defendant from the intermediate wholesaler to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was issued with the goods to the relevant intermediate wholesaler and received the certificate of acceptance, and then notified the Defendant of the completion of the delivery, and claimed the price for the goods.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied KRW 1,068,035,100 to the Defendant during the period from November 2013 to March 2014, and received KRW 882,325,250 in total from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 185,709,850 payable to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

B. According to the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 (including the number of each branch number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), it is recognized that the defendant requested the plaintiff to issue a tax invoice for the total amount of KRW 1,035,738,50 from November 26, 2013 to February 2, 2014; the plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the amount of KRW 21,571,50 in total from November 5, 2013 to November 25, 2013, and issued a tax invoice for KRW 1,068,035,10 in total by issuing the tax invoice for the amount of KRW 21,571,50 in total, from November 5, 2013 to November 25, 2013; and that the total amount of sales from November 26, 2013 to March 2014 to the Director of the Sales Office prepared by the plaintiff is written.

However, the following circumstances, which can be seen by the respective statements and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 7, are as follows, namely, ① the Customer Director (Evidence No. 3) and the Director of the Sales Agency B, as the grounds for the supply of goods to the defendant.