Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

D, an employee of C, is as shown in the attached Form 1(Evidence 3) and the attached Form 2(Evidence 14). D, an employee of C, consists of piping facilities related to the “E Officetel construction, pipes valves and spons, etc., and the three set-type fixed-type drawings are as shown in the attached Form 1(Evidence 3) and the four set-type fixed-type photographs.

In relation to the supply, the plaintiff and the defendant have been in practical charge of the transaction.

The defendant received four fixed samples from D and requested D to the head of the site site of the above construction site of the defendant affiliated with D to obtain four fixed samples, and I transferred F the duties of the head of the site to F before the said sampling arrives in the defendant.

Therefore, I ordered 182 sets of goods consisting of four fixed spaces and valves through D on February 19, 2018 to the Plaintiff, an agent of C, who is a corporation, as the agent of C.

However, the head of the construction site site at which the defendant was employed requested D to supply a three-dimensional fixed-scale set set of sets of sets on the ground that the four fixed-scale set of sets of sets does not coincide with the site, and the G actually managing the defendant also reported the above contents.

D On February 20, 2018, the Plaintiff’s representative director H visited the Defendant’s office along with the Defendant’s office, and submitted a written estimate (Evidence No. 2, hereinafter “instant quotation”) and a drawing No. 1 attached hereto, stating that the unit price of each set, including three set units of fixed vehicles, is KRW 119,900 (excluding value-added tax) to G.

On March 9, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied 182 sets of goods (hereinafter “instant goods”) composed of three-dimensional fixed stands and valves at the construction site, and the Defendant installed the instant goods at the construction site above.

On March 25, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 24,003,980 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant for the payment of the price of the instant goods.

After that, on June 27, 2018, the Plaintiff returned part of the instant goods at the Defendant’s request and returned them.