1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. On June 30, 2011, the Defendant operating a basic fact-based (i.e., business registration is the name of the Defendant’s living together D) entered into a contract with Nonparty 1, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “New World”) to supply clothing materials.

The Plaintiff, who operates Doll E, made and supplied part of the goods related to the clothes and subsidiary materials ordered by the Defendant from July 201 to the new world, and delivered the goods by May 2012 after the delivery of the approval.

Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that the Plaintiff shall request the Defendant to pay the price for the goods to be supplied to the new world, and the Plaintiff shall present to the Defendant on December 19, 2013, a certificate of content that seeks to dispose of the said goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On June 30, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount equivalent to KRW 17,906,200 should be paid to the Plaintiff even if the goods in question were not supplied to the New World, since some of the goods related to the clothing were manufactured on June 30, 201 under a contract with the Defendant.

Therefore, we examine whether or not the defendant is liable to pay the above inventory value to the plaintiff. First of all, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to pay the price to the plaintiff in whole while ordering all the above production of the goods. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is liable to pay the price to the plaintiff on a different premise cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, in full view of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4 and 6 and the overall purport of testimony and pleading by the witness F, F, which was a staff member of the new world, is known to have been directly produced and supplied by the Defendant for the reason that G, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, has three names.