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, who was an employee of the U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ U.S.”), requested the Defendant to transport two railroad and track vehicles to the lower-party located in the Dong Dong-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon for the transportation of two railway and track vehicles to the lower-party located in 270-1, and around July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff transported two railway and track vehicles to the lower-party, one of which was the same day and the following day after transporting two railway and track vehicles to the lower-party.

B. At the time of transporting the said railroad and track vehicles, the Plaintiff participated in the development of a method of rapid replacement of the railway bridge by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (hereinafter “development of a method of replacement”), and the Defendant served in the seal from June 201 to December 2014.

C. On July 31, 2014, the Defendant prepared and rendered to the Plaintiff a non-payment certificate of transportation expenses.

On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice to the Green Industry Co., Ltd. and revoked it. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice and revoked it. On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a new tax invoice to the Defendant.

E. The unpaid transport cost is KRW 11,165,00 (including surtax) and the excessive administrative fine paid by the Plaintiff due to the instant transport is KRW 800,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 through 8, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the transportation cost of the instant railway vehicles at the request of the defendant. Thus, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the defendant is merely a person who is merely a person, and the party to the instant transportation contract is a person. Thus, the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

Railroad cars of this case are transported for the test and construction of alternative method of development.