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. Basic facts

A. On August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an additional agreement with the Defendant to add the location of B operated by A to the delivery place on the same day (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”). According to the said agreement, the Plaintiff’s request for the order of goods is an order in writing or verbally issued to the Defendant.

B. From August 2015 to November 2015, the Defendant supplied goods by means of supply to B as the location of B.

C. The Defendant did not pay KRW 62,311,105 out of the price for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff as above, which amount to KRW 72,311,105.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay KRW 62,311,105 for the amount of unpaid goods on November 2015 pursuant to the instant agreement. However, there was no request from the Plaintiff for the order of the said goods, and the said 11-minute goods transaction was conducted voluntarily without the Plaintiff’s consent.

Therefore, it is necessary to request the defendant to confirm the existence of the liability amount of 62,311,105 won for the above 11-minute goods.

B. As to the transaction of goods on November 2015, 2015, the summary of the Defendant’s assertion, like the transaction of goods from August 2015 to October 10, 2015, the Defendant, upon receiving a request for delivery from A, consulted with the Plaintiff in advance in the process of ordering and delivering goods by confirming the order and supplying the goods to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff recognized the transaction details and obligations even after delivery, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Defendant unpaid goods out of the amount of goods sold on November

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective statements and arguments in Gap's 1, 2, 4, and 5, Eul's 1, 3, and 4 through 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings, this case is examined.