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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is a company that sells steel products, and the Defendant is a company that operates a comprehensive construction business, a construction business, etc.

B. From July 20, 2016 to September 3, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied KRW 26,443,604 (g) in five times via Nonparty B at the construction site of building A, Songpa-gu Seoul, Seoul, via Nonparty B.

C. On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice with the Defendant’s business registration certificate and received KRW 7,038,372 from the Defendant, stating that “the content of claiming KRW 7,038,372 from the person who is supplied with the Defendant was paid KRW 7,038,372.” On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff issued the electronic tax invoice stating “the content of claiming KRW 3,597,506 with the Defendant supplied the goods as the recipient of the goods,” and received KRW 3,597,506 from the Defendant. In the case of the remainder of the goods, the Plaintiff issued the electronic tax invoice and requested the Defendant to pay the price, but the Defendant did not pay it.

Accordingly, on October 10, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 15,807,726 (i.e., KRW 26,443,604 - KRW 7,038,372 - 3,597,506) that has not yet been paid to the Defendant until October 17, 2016, and the Defendant was served with the content-certified mail.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff provided goods to the defendant through B, and the plaintiff delivered the defendant's business registration certificate to the plaintiff and let the plaintiff issue a tax invoice to the plaintiff as "the recipient of goods". The defendant paid the price of goods directly to the plaintiff twice according to the tax invoice issued by the plaintiff. In light of this, the defendant can be deemed to have concluded a goods transaction contract with the plaintiff through the field agent B.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.