1. The Plaintiff, Defendant A, Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant B, KRW 137,060,000, and each of the above amounts from June 30, 2016.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a medical device sales contract with the Defendants on March 2016, respectively. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to the Defendants respectively. However, the Defendants did not deliver the pertinent medical device until now.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff cancelled each sales contract with the Defendants through the service of the duplicate of the instant complaint. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sales price and the damages for delay, respectively, as a result of the cancellation of the sales contract.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. On March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant A to purchase the medical devices listed in the No. 3 through No. 8 of the Attached Devices for KRW 250,338,000, and on June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid Defendant A the purchase price of KRW 250,338,000.

However, Defendant A did not deliver the above medical device until now.

In addition, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the above sales contract with Defendant A by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and on January 9, 2017, the duplicate of the complaint of this case reached Defendant A.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, evidence Nos. 4-1, 5-1, 7-1, 7-1, 5-1, 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. First of all, we examine Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A issued electronic tax invoices in the name of “D” and received or withdrawn the payment of the contract price entered into in the name of “D” according to C’s instruction after lending the name of business registration of “D” to Defendant A, who is the form of his/her punishment, and then examine Defendant A’s assertion to the effect that he/she is not a party to a sales contract.

Generally, who is the party to the contract is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the party involved.

There is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties, which becomes an issue of interpretation of the parties.