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. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff traded milch in the purchase price of KRW 40 million to the Defendant, and received 23 million out of the purchase price from the Defendant on the day of the contract.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the purchase price of KRW 17 million to the Plaintiff until June 28, 2014, but only paid KRW 13.3 million thereafter, and the remainder KRW 3.7 million has not been paid until now. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3.7 million and its delay damages.

2. According to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff entrusted C with the sale and purchase of milch 11 ma, which is owned by the Plaintiff. On June 27, 2014, the Defendant decided to purchase 11 milch 10 million won, which is owned by the Plaintiff, from C on June 27, 2014, and paid KRW 23 million out of the above KRW 40 million on the date of the contract. The Defendant actually deposited KRW 17 million on June 28, 2014, including KRW 5 million, which is the following day of the contract.

B Transfer to C, and C may each recognize the fact of transfer of KRW 13.3 million out of the above KRW 17 million on the same day to the Plaintiff’s account.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant purchased milch lawsuit from the plaintiff's commission agent C. In such a case of consignment sale, the commission agent directly becomes the party and bears his rights and duties, and there is no direct legal relationship between the principal and the third party.

Therefore, the plaintiff, the truster, cannot claim the purchase price against the defendant, and the defendant paid the milch price in full by paying the 40 million won to C. Thus, the plaintiff's claim does not seem to be any mother and is without merit.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that he did not entrust milch trade to C and that the defendant entered into a sales contract with C under the brokerage of C, but the plaintiff 1 and 1.