1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 73,774,980 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from March 1, 2013 to November 20, 2013.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 아스콘 제작 및 판매와 이에 부대되는 사업 일체를 영위하는 회사이고, 피고는 토목건축공사업 등을 영위하는 회사이다.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant set in advance the unit price of the asphalt supplied by the Plaintiff from July 201 to July 201, and traded in such a way that the Plaintiff received an order from the head of the Defendant’s site and received the order from the Defendant and received the price from the Defendant.

C. Around October 31, 2012, the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract for construction work after dividing the construction work of expanding the parking lot in the Asia-Pacific Factory into one, two-lanes; (b) the construction work period from November 1, 2012 to December 16, 2012; and (c) again completed the construction work after concluding the contract; (d) the remainder of the construction work period from January 18, 2013 to February 28, 2013 (the construction work period has been extended from January 19, 2013 to April 28, 2013; and (e) the construction period has been extended to KRW 538,70,000 for the remainder of the construction work period; and (e) the construction work period has been increased to KRW 587,000,000 for the construction work period (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

The Defendant, among the instant construction works, subcontracted the parts of the incidental wooden works to the Ganchi Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the subcontracted construction works included the ice Packaging Corporation.

E. The Plaintiff did not enter into a written contract with the Defendant or Glim, and received an order from the Defendant’s employees, from the instant construction project B to the 28th day of the same month from February 23, 2013 to the instant construction site, and supplied asphalt equivalent to KRW 113,774,980 (including value-added tax) in total.

E. The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant for the primary construction-related asphalt transaction. However, upon the Defendant’s request on March 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with regard to the instant database transaction, but there was a tax invoice with regard to the said database transaction, which entered into a person who is supplied GyeongNC at the request of the Defendant.

On the other hand, the plaintiff on April 2, 2013.