1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who runs the wholesale business of drugs, etc. under the trade name of "B". The defendant is a company established for the purpose of wholesale business of drugs, etc., and the defendant's intervenor is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale business of drugs, etc

B. From January 2009 to February 2, 2013, the Plaintiff was supplied with drugs from the Intervenor joining the Defendant and paid the price.

However, a promissory note with a face value of KRW 40 million paid by the Plaintiff for the payment of pharmaceutical products was rejected on February 16, 2013. Around that time, a promissory note with a face value of KRW 1.54 billion was also disposed of due to the default of payment.

C. On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a detailed statement of transaction that psychotropic drugs, such as U.S.com 5mg, sub-topju 1mg, probane 1% 100mg (hereinafter “instant drug”) were supplied to the Defendant for KRW 19,124,196, and delivered the said drug supplied by the Defendant’s Intervenor.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. As to the Defendant’s main defense, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the purchase price of the instant pharmaceutical product against the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant had already paid the purchase price and did not have a claim for payment any longer.

On the other hand, in the lawsuit of performance, the plaintiff has standing to sue against a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, and whether he/she actually has the right to demand performance or not is judged within the subject matter of the lawsuit.

3. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) sold the instant medicine amount to KRW 19,124,196 to the Defendant around February 21, 2013, and the Defendant is above the Plaintiff.