1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 34,452,00 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 34,452,00 for the Plaintiff from March 12, 2016 to January 4, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2015, the Defendant suspended the instant construction work on or around June 2015, following a dispute with the Intervenor due to the use of domestic steel bars instead of domestic steel bars, and the payment of the construction cost, while performing the construction work after being awarded a contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) for the new construction of the Daegu Dong-gu Ground T (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. At the time of the execution of the instant construction, the Defendant purchased the steel bars to be used in the instant construction, and loaded the Chinese steel bars on a site adjacent to the instant construction site, and the Korean steel bars loaded 54 tons of the Korean steel bars (hereinafter “instant steel bars”) on the road abutting on the south of the instant construction site.

C. On November 2, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant steel bars to the Plaintiff at KRW 34,452,00 (including value-added tax) and received full payments from the Plaintiff for the said steel bars.

Even after the Plaintiff purchased the instant steel bars, the Plaintiff left the place of its original loading without transferring the instant steel bars.

On the other hand, the Intervenor and the Defendant settled the accounts of Section 1 on March 10, 2016 with respect to the instant construction project, and set the total amount of raw materials brought into the construction site of the said Agreement and the construction site of the instant construction site as KRW 360,00,000 (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant settlement agreement”). (e)

After the settlement agreement of the instant case, the Intervenor continued to perform the instant construction project on the contract basis to the D Company. Since March 12, 2016, the D Company used the instant steel bars to the instant construction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap or Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff 1's assertion that the defendant sold the instant steel bars to the plaintiff and sold them to the plaintiff, but the instant steel bars are assigned according to the settlement agreement of the case.