1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the wholesale and retail business of kitchen supplies with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a person engaged in the shopping mall construction business. 2) The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with, from July 26, 2015 to August 12, 2015, the amount of KRW 11,105,50 as necessary for the shopping mall construction performed by the Defendant.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1,105,50 won for the kitchen supplies and delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserted that D had an undertaking agreement with the Plaintiff on the assumption of the obligation that D would be exempt from the said obligation, instead of taking over the said obligation of the price for the said bank supplies, the Defendant entered into an undertaking agreement with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is no longer obligated to comply with the above claim.

B. Whether the assumption of the obligation is overlapping is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the assumption of the obligation, and if it is not clear whether the assumption of the obligation is a discharge or an overlapping acceptance is made in the assumption of the obligation, it shall be deemed to have been taken over in duplicate.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36228, Sept. 24, 2002). The fact that the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D agreed to take over the obligation to pay the price for the above kitchen supplies does not conflict between the parties, but it is insufficient to deem that there was a conclusive agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to exempt the Defendant from the Defendant’s obligation on the sole basis of the statement of the evidence No. 1.

Therefore, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view D as acquiring the above debt overlappingly, and on a different premise, the prior defendant's defense is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant shall promote the Plaintiff’s lawsuit from September 28, 2016 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint and the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.