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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells building materials under the trade name B, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs a construction business, etc.

B. The Defendant subcontracted the instant construction of reinforced concrete (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the “D installation works” in Gyeongjin-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongjin-gun, which the Korea Development Corporation performed. From the end of June, 2014, the construction was carried out.

C. From April 2, 2015 to July 11, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a detailed statement of transactions in the Defendant’s future, and prepared a detailed statement of transactions seeking payment of KRW 11,856,93,00,000 for the total amount of unpaid goods on September 18, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the Plaintiff supplied construction materials equivalent to KRW 16,233,933 to the Defendant from January 1, 2015 to July 11, 2015, the Defendant did not pay the purchase price of KRW 11,856,93, out of which KRW 11,856,933, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price of the unpaid goods and the delay damages therefrom.

B. Determination is based on the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff issued a trading statement from April 2, 2015 to July 11, 2015 in the Defendant’s future; and (b) prepared a trading statement seeking payment of KRW 11,856,93 in total of the unpaid amount of goods.

However, each of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 14, and Eul Nos. 1 through 6, and the following circumstances, i.e., upon the supply of building materials at the construction site of this case, the defendant: (a) confirmed the content and signed by the head of the Defendant’s site headquarters E or the head of the site site of Korea Development Co., Ltd., the prime contractor, and signed it; (b) the statement of transaction submitted by the plaintiff (Evidence No. 3) did not have such signature; and (c) there exists only the signature of G (H, the name of "H") that was traded as a tree at the construction site of this case; and (b) supplied the plaintiff to the defendant.