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

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the wholesale business of building materials, joint boards, and respective materials, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of soil construction business, etc.

B. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff issued respectively electronic tax invoices of KRW 14,401,20,200, the sum totaling 6,743,000 on October 31, 2014, the sum totaling 2,609,200, and the sum totaling 2,609,200, and November 30, 2014, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant subcontracted to “F” the Construction Work and the Construction Work of the Gyeong-gun, Seongbuk-gun (hereinafter “each of the instant construction Works”). The Plaintiff supplied materials upon entering into a contract with F and the said two construction sites under which the Plaintiff would supply Gohap and other construction materials. As F was unable to receive advance payment from the Defendant, the Plaintiff et al., and Nonparty G, the actual business owner of F, and H, the Defendant’s representative, agreed to pay the materials directly to the Defendant for the portion supplied after August 1, 2014, according to the direct payment agreement, the Defendant is obligated to pay the materials as stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is merely a direct payment to the Plaintiff for the portion of September 2014, and accordingly, the Defendant paid the material price for the portion supplied in September 2014. As such, there is no reason for the Defendant to pay the price to the Plaintiff for the other portion supplied.

3. If the purport of evidence No. 2 and No. 5-1 and No. 5-2 added to the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff received the direct payment statement (Evidence No. 5-1) from the Defendant Company I on November 6, 2014 by e-mail, and that the Plaintiff received KRW 6,398,480 from the Defendant on September 2014.

However, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 3, 1, 3, 5, and 2.