A. The Plaintiff is a person who produces and processes gold with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a corporation that aims at the research and development and design of gold-type.

B. Prior to the instant case, the Plaintiff produced and processed gold-types upon request from the Defendant for production or processing of gold-types.

C. The Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant for production or processing of gold punishment, such as the annexed sheet (hereinafter “instant sheet”) from the Defendant, and produced or processed gold punishment on the sequence 1 through 4, and delivered it to the Defendant.

Upon receiving a request from Nonparty D for a set of gold production, the Defendant: (a) requested the Plaintiff to provide double charging processing part; and (b) sent five gold sheets to the Plaintiff on November 26, 2018.

(No. 5). e.

Since then, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the unpaid gold production or processing amount, and the Defendant’s refusal of such request and return the gold-related gold-related 5 years which the Plaintiff provided to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff rejected such request.

F. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in order that the Defendant would not pay the production or processing cost of the gold punishment while having been kept in custody, after completing the above-mentioned preventive process.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant ordered payment of the amount exceeding the scope of the plaintiff's claim since June 5, 2019, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff completed the production, processing, and performance of the non-paid gold production or processing costs 18,590,000 won and the plaintiff's production, processing, and performance of the goods. The court of first instance ordered payment from June 5, 2019 to the plaintiff. Since the court of appeal declares the cancellation of the above excess portion, the appeal is dismissed.