Around April 2016, the Defendant: (a) assembled and supplied furniture to D apartment units built by the Defendant Company C, and the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with household materials, such as PB, MDF, and so on; (b) agreed to receive the price of goods from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”); and (c) supplied household materials to the Defendant from August 2016 to February 2017 under the instant commodity supply contract.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (Evidence with Additional Numbers shall include Serials; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) As to the goods supplied by the Plaintiff during the period from December 2016 to February 2017, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the price of the goods supplied from December 2016 to February 2017 (= KRW 116,948,568,568, 42,508,730, 84,721,208), as alleged by the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff.

The delivery statement submitted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff (No. 3-5-7) is based on the original of the transaction statement attached to the supply statement itself, and it is difficult to believe that there are documents prepared and indicated as if they were voluntarily received by the Plaintiff, and there are overlapping materials.

The Defendant recognized the fact that the Plaintiff received goods from the Plaintiff from December 2016 to February 2017. However, insofar as the unit price of goods supplied was unilaterally increased and supplied by the Plaintiff from November 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not complete the settlement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, there is no obligation to pay the price of goods based on the unit price claimed by the Plaintiff.

The facts of recognition are as follows: Gap's 3, 4, 18 through 21, 29, and Eul's 5.