2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Defendant is a person who runs a wholesale and retail business of clothing and subsidiary materials with the trade name of D from the building in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. Upon receipt of a request from the Defendant, the Plaintiff, who is a female, supplied the Defendant with the garments equivalent to KRW 87,629,210, in total, from April 27, 2016 to June 27, 2017, upon receipt of the request from the Defendant to deliver the garments.

C. The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 75,243,70 from the Defendant is KRW 12,384,510 (=87,629,210 - KRW 75,243,70).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts based on the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 12,384,510 won of unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 11, 2017 to the day following the day of complete payment, which is the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s supply of the Plaintiff’s materials through E is nothing more than the supply of the Plaintiff’s materials, but is not the other party who entered into a goods supply contract with the Plaintiff. 2) According to the following circumstances, the Plaintiff and the other party who entered into a goods supply contract with the Plaintiff after considering the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the other party who entered into a goods supply contract with the Plaintiff

① The Plaintiff (Plaintiff’s mother’s account in the name of “D”) registered as a business entity was paid for the goods of clothes.

② Until now, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with materials for clothing, and transmitted a statement of account settlement to D’s e-mail.

The defendant did not raise any particular objection to the above details and paid the price for the goods to the plaintiff.

③ The Plaintiff and D’s trading period is weak.