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 engaged in the business of collecting and selling aggregate, and the defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing others and bricks.

B. As of October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a transaction statement and electronic tax invoice of KRW 11,591,250 (hereinafter “the instant price”) with the Plaintiff as the supplier and the Defendant as the supplier. From October 13, 2016 to October 21, 2016, the said transaction statement was made based on the sand tea list (hereinafter “the instant transaction statement”).

C. On July 31, 2017, August 9, 2017, and September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding the Defendant to settle the instant payment three times.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. On October 2016, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant: (a) paid the Plaintiff the subsequent payment; and (b) the Defendant, if a vehicle C designated by the Defendant, would have unconditioned sand onto C in the upper end; and (c) loaded sand onto C in the upper end.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the instant price according to the instant specification of transactions.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant introduced the Plaintiff on the following grounds: “A person who supplies Jin soil to the Defendant around spring around 2016: (a) supplied sand to the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant introduced the Plaintiff; (c) on the ground that there was a price for the goods to be paid to D; (d) so, the Defendant would confirm the content of sand if the Defendant supplied sand to D as much as that of the front ticket issued by the Defendant and pay it instead of payment.”

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff supplied sand to D at will without confirming the Defendant’s consent without confirming the details of the instant transaction, which was caused by the Defendant’s non-approval of the instant transaction.