1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

On October 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 45 million from the Defendant and Nonparty B.

Since then, upon the defendant's request, 45 million won of the above borrowed loan debt shall be repaid with sand, and the defendant shall be supplied with sand equivalent to 64,402,80 won in total (including value-added tax) from September 16, 2015 to December 5, 2015.

However, as above, the defendant issued the tax invoice for sand in the name of the limited company C (hereinafter referred to as the "C") it actually operates.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 19,402,80 (i.e., the above KRW 64,402,800- the above KRW 45 million) and damages for delay.

The defendant's assertion is nothing more than introducing C to the plaintiff upon request by the defendant, and the plaintiff is not a party to whom sand was supplied by the plaintiff.

Judgment

According to the statement of Gap evidence No. 1-3 and Gap evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the plaintiff supplied sand from September 16, 2015 to December 5, 2015, and the plaintiff issued the electronic tax invoice to Eul as the other party, and Eul is a company for the purpose of transportation.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as the witness B of the first instance trial’s testimony and recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) entry of C, not the Defendant, in the “supplyer” column of the electronic tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff in the course of supplying the sand of this case; (ii) C is a transport company unrelated to the production of aggregate; and (iii) the other party to whom the sand of this case was actually supplied is a limited liability company, not C; and (iv) in the first instance trial, B lent KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff; and (iv) the Plaintiff delegated the right to receive the repayment of the above loan to the Defendant, who is the birth; and (v) testified to the purport that the Plaintiff was issued a tax invoice by lending the name of C without any legal entity.