1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity established on December 30, 2014 for the purpose of the business of manufacturing fashion timber, etc., and the Defendant is an individual engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business of office households with the trade name “C”.

B. D, the representative of the Plaintiff, was the trade name of “E” from August 2005 to June 2014, and D, the trade name of “A” from July 2014 to December 2014; and the Plaintiff supplied each Defendant with goods, such as a wood panel, from January 2, 2015 to July 5, 2017.

C. The Plaintiff had managed the Customer Director of D and F by combining the details of transactions with the Defendant. According to the Customer Director of the said Customer Director, the outstanding amount as of December 30, 2014, immediately before the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant, is KRW 7,873,728, and the outstanding amount as of October 13, 2017, which was after the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s commodity supply transaction, is KRW 7,263,078.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The relationship between the Plaintiff’s assertion D and the Defendant’s supply of goods that began was transferred to the Plaintiff on July 2015 via F around July 2014.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,263,078, which is the attempted price of the goods supplied from the first D to the plaintiff, and the delay compensation therefor.

B. The Defendant alleged that there was a transaction with D with D, but there was a dispute over D and the price of goods as the issue of discount, and whether the Plaintiff succeeded to D’s claim or not, and the price for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff was paid in full.

3. The judgment of the plaintiff filed the claim of this case seeking the payment of the purchase-price claim against the defendant of D (E) and F (A) on the premise that he succeeded to the claim of the purchase-price claim. Thus, the defendant's goods supplied by the plaintiff are related to the plaintiff.