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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells ethyl dance in ethyl City C, and the Defendant is a person who engages in construction business in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D.

B. On November 9, 2016, the Defendant contracted to the Plaintiff for the production and supply of rashing (hereinafter “instant contract”). On January 16, 2017, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff the “project owner’s drawing” (Evidence 5) and requested the Plaintiff to make an estimate of the cost in accordance with the said drawing. On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a written estimate (total 11,97,400 won) in a package production form and a written estimate (total 13,527,40 won) in a unit production form (total 13,527,400 won) and a written estimate in a unit production form (total 13,527,400 won) to the Defendant on November 18, 2018.

3) On February 10, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the above hosting to the site. The Defendant paid KRW 12,100,000 for the supply price. (c) On September 5, 2017, the Defendant awarded a contract to the Plaintiff for reconstruction of KRW 17,745,090 for the supply price in accordance with the “project owner’s drawings (Evidence 5)” and the Plaintiff supplied it to the site on November 3, 2017. D. On February 14, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 5 million for the supply price to the Plaintiff on the basis of the supply price. [In the absence of grounds for dispute, subparagraphs 1 through 6, 1 through 10, and 1 through 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied construction materials over three months at the F site that the Defendant performed from September 1, 2017 to November 30, 2017, upon the Defendant’s request for ordering, but only five million won, which is part of the price, was paid, and did not receive the remainder of 12,745,090 won.

B. Unlike the drawing of the Malaysia that the Plaintiff supplied pursuant to the first supply contract, the Defendant’s assertion has a high risk of safety accidents due to the occurrence of the phenomenon at the central part of the Malaysia.