1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2...

1. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed, since the plaintiff did not designate B as the defendant and designated C, a director of the above corporation who is not the defendant's qualified person, as the defendant. However, since the designation of the defendant cannot be viewed as a litigation requirement, it is not the subject of the prior defense on the merits, and it is obvious in the record that the above corporation was corrected by the plaintiff's application for correction of the defendant. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures dental appliances and supplies dental appliances with the trade name of “Dental Laboratory,” and the Defendant operates “E dental clinic (hereinafter “instant dental clinic”) as a non-profit organization with free medical treatment, etc. for low-income older persons as its main business.”

B. From January 2001 to July 2005, the Plaintiff supplied dental technicians, etc. to the social welfare foundation F, which is the instant dental operator, before the Defendant’s establishment, and supplied the Defendant with dental technicians, etc. until the end of the period from July 2012.

hereinafter referred to as "the delivery transaction of this case"

(C) The instant supply transaction was conducted in the manner that the Plaintiff entered the details and unit price of the instant medical appliances, etc., which the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff, including dental appliances necessary for the patient, and entered the details and unit price of the instant medical appliances, etc., and entered two copies of the transaction list, including the attempted balance before the delivery, and the sum of the accounts receivable for the pertinent supply, into the lower end, and deliver one of them to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered the total sum of the accounts at KRW 16,076,00 in the lower end of the transaction list as of December 4, 2012. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered the account amount at KRW 16,00 in the lower end of the transaction list as of December 4, 2012.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff was not paid the delivery transaction of this case with the defendant.