1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 1,190,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from May 4, 2014 to December 10, 2019 against the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of a claim for the price of goods;

A. The facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s net sold agricultural chemicals with the trade name “D” from September 20, 1998, and the Plaintiff registered wholesale and retail business with the trade name “D” on April 1, 2013. (2) The Defendant was supplied with agricultural chemicals and farming materials in “D” operated by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband C until May 3, 2014, and did not pay for the total amount of KRW 27,093,50.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence Eul 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness E's witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 22,093,500 won after deducting five million won from the price of the goods paid to the plaintiff at KRW 27,093,500 as the price of the goods, and damages for delay thereof. 2) The defendant made a confession at the first instance trial that the price of the goods was KRW 27,093,50 as the price of the goods. However, the confession based on the evidence No. 2 delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant is contrary to the truth as it is based on mistake caused by the plaintiff. However, it is difficult to view the defendant as a fabricated account book in light of the content and form of the original evidence No. 2 as the price of the goods provided by the plaintiff, and it is also difficult to view that the defendant made a long-term transaction with the plaintiff 2 or her husband, and it is not consistent with the empirical rule that the transaction details or approximate credit amount was known that the plaintiff 2 and the defendant did not know the amount of the goods deposited to the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2.