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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that carries on the Do book manufacturing business, and the Defendant is a company that carries on the Do book manufacturing business.

B. On April 2018, the Plaintiff produced a Dobook and established it at the Defendant’s workplace.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion made books of KRW 23,100,00 (including value-added tax) at the defendant's request and supplied them to the defendant's workplace. Since the defendant paid KRW 15,00,000 out of the above goods price, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining amount of KRW 8,100,000 and the delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. On December 14, 2017, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply and construction of a Do book with a non-party corporation C (hereinafter “non-party company”) instead of the Plaintiff, and set up a Do book, and paid all the price of the goods at the Non-party company’s request. Therefore, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. The fact that the Plaintiff produced a Do book and installed it at the Defendant’s workplace around April 2018 is recognized as above.

However, the following facts and circumstances revealed in full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in Eul 1 and 2, i.e., the defendant entered into a contract for the delivery of Dobook with the non-party company on December 14, 2017, and ② the defendant was in the position of Gwangju and Jeonnam Branch of the non-party company D.

The Plaintiff appears to have deposited KRW 15,00,000 as part of the price of delivered goods at the request of the Plaintiff, and all of the remaining price of supplied goods deposited into the account in the name of D or non-party company, ③ Plaintiff’s sales tax invoice (Evidence A1) appears to be able to be issued even without the Defendant’s consent, ④ Plaintiff appears to have produced and supplied the books to the Defendant under the agreement with the non-party company, and the Plaintiff concluded a contract for the supply of books with the Defendant.