2. Litigation costs are borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name of “B” and runs a wood-type rap and a wood processing business, etc.

B. On September 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with an amount equivalent to KRW 38,890,874, such as timbering products, etc. at the construction site of the construction site of the construction site of the main apartment located in the interesting household (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

C. In the first place, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount of money and delay damages to the plaintiff, since he entered into a goods supply contract with the plaintiff via C or agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the above goods price.

Preliminaryly, the defendant completed the interior wooden work on the basis of the materials supplied by the plaintiff, and since this is without any legal ground that the defendant gains profits from the plaintiff's property, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the above price of the goods and damages for delay thereof to the plaintiff

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the primary claim, the Plaintiff’s provision of timber sunset crowdfunding products, etc. at the construction site of this case is recognized, according to the statement of Gap’s No. 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s witness’s testimony, and the entire purport of the pleading.

However, it is difficult to believe that part of the witness C’s testimony, which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, is recognized by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the witness C’s partial testimony, that is, the Plaintiff subcontracted to C the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the construction site of the instant case, C is supplied with and used by the Plaintiff, and C has managed the construction site of the instant case through D and E. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe, and there was a commodity supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant solely based on the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, and 9, and witness testimony of the witness C.

It is insufficient to recognize that there has been an agreement to pay the price or that there has been no other evidence to recognize it.