1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 20, 2010, Defendant B, along with Defendant B, found the Plaintiff, who was engaged in the business of cultivating the former dynasium, and purchased KRW 60,000 per 30 foot dynasium 200,000 (hereinafter “the former dynasium”). Defendant B, who was the buyer of the instant former dynasium, did not pay KRW 19,000,000 out of the purchase price, and did not pay KRW 41,00,000,000 from the purchase price.

B. Around January 10, 2012, Defendant C agreed to pay all the price of the previously returned goods of this case, and sought the payment of the agreed amount.

2. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim for the purchase price, the Defendants asserted that D had the same fact when D purchased the uniforms of this case from the Plaintiff, but the parties who purchased the uniforms of this case from the Plaintiff were D.

It is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant B is the purchaser of the instant pre-presidential tablet solely on the ground that the purchaser of the instant pre-presidential tablet was the health team, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same as the same), Party E’s testimony at the appellate court, and Plaintiff’s personal examination result at the court of first instance on whether Defendant B is Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

The Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise different from this is rejected. Meanwhile, in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants acquired the instant pre-delivery failure without any cause, and thus, the amount equivalent to the price was unjust. In the appellate trial, the Plaintiff asserted that this part of the claim was unjust. Although D sold the instant pre-delivery failure purchased from the Plaintiff to the Defendants again, it did not seek payment of the purchase price from the Defendants in lieu of D, and thus, it was modified to the purport that the Defendants seek payment of the purchase price of the instant pre-delivery failure (see, e.g., written brief dated April 28, 2014).