1. Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff who is ordered to pay below.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff received an order from the Defendant from September 19, 2017 to September 29, 2017 and supplied 1,326 cubic meters of mixed aggregates (40m) at the site of D Urban Development Project Site Construction Works (hereinafter “the instant aggregate”); and (b) the Plaintiff supplied 21,149,700 cubic meters of aggregate; (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay the said aggregate price and damages for delay.

Although the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) with respect to the instant aggregate, it was merely prepared by the Defendant to claim aggregate amount to E by notifying the content of the agreement on September 27, 2017 with E, and it is merely a joint acquisition of the instant aggregate payment obligation by E.

B. The defendant's main point of the defendant's assertion is only a subcontractor for soil works and reinforced concrete and water supply and drainage works among the construction works for building sites for a DNA urban development project from E, and there was no subcontract for the road works for which the aggregate in this case is used from E, and there was no fact that the plaintiff supplied the aggregate in

However, from December 28, 2015 to July 23, 2018, Nonparty F, who was the head of the instant construction site, had been working as an employee of the Defendant Company, had confirmed the order and acceptance of aggregate necessary for the road construction during the said construction work upon the request of the E representative director G. However, around September 27, 2017, the instant aggregate proceeds were collected by the representative director G, the president H, the deputy director I, the representative director of the Defendant Company, the president of the Defendant Company, and the president, and the Plaintiff was also responsible for E. In light of the fact that the electronic tax invoice was issued, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the instant aggregate proceeds.

2. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the Plaintiff, who received E on September 30, 2017, prepares a transaction statement and an electronic tax invoice stating that the Plaintiff claims the instant aggregate payment.