1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 24, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for KRW 240,000,000 for the purchase price of KRW 100,000 for the previous uniforms; and (b) delivered KRW 100,000 for the Defendant on the same day.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 24,000,000 won and damages for delay.

2. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone, as seen next to the determination, is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff sold the uniforms to the Defendant on March 24, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A No. 1 (Transaction Nos. 1) appears to be without who is the originator, and only arranging the details of transactions claimed by the Plaintiff.

B. The main contents of evidence No. 2 and witness C’s testimony are as follows: “A witness shall, at the request of the Defendant around March 2013, make a statement before the frequency in which the 100,000 won of the baton fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fats.”

① The witness C was an employee of the aquaculture operated by the Plaintiff.

The evidence No. 2 states that “A, at the Defendant’s request, lost the uniforms of the uniforms to the North Korea from the Mapopo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo

In light of the relationship between the plaintiff and the witness C, the background of the witness C’s signing the evidence No. 2, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of testimony based on the contents from the plaintiff, not the witness C, not his memory according to the friendly relationship with the plaintiff.

(2) The defendant worked at the aquaculture operated by the defendant.