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

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a retail business of construction materials in Sacheon-si C with the trade name “D,” and the Defendant is a contractor who received a contract from E, the owner of building on July 21, 2015, for the 4th floor housing remodeling project located in F in Sacheon-si (hereinafter “instant construction project”) for construction cost of KRW 25 million.

B. Upon receiving a request from the Defendant to introduce a part of the work necessary for the instant construction, the Plaintiff introduced G on July 25, 2015 to the Defendant.

C. From July 28, 2015 to August 6, 2015, G performed the instant construction in E’s housing. During the said period, G supplied construction materials, such as cement, styp, styp, styp, steel monak, etc., and tools, and boiler sets (hereinafter “instant goods”) to the construction site of the instant construction site through G during the said period, and issued a trading list indicating the total amount of KRW 2,932,50 in the Defendant’s future.

Meanwhile, E remitted the Defendant’s wife KRW 10 million to H on July 23, 2015, and KRW 7 million on August 9, 2015 to the instant construction cost.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 (including evidence number), Eul's evidence Nos. 14, Eul's witness G's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion G is the Defendant’s on-site director during the construction period, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of the instant goods (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), 3,225,750 won, and damages for delay.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not confirm the detailed statement of transaction issued by the Plaintiff, and G is an employee of the Plaintiff, and there is no authority to be supplied with the instant goods on behalf of the Defendant because G cannot be said to be the Defendant’s on-site manager, and the Defendant is not obligated to pay the instant goods. 2) Even if G is the Defendant’s on-site manager, the boiler