1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following additional portions, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. Defendant’s assertion 1 The addressee of a written rejection of payment is not the Plaintiff but C.

At the time, the Plaintiff was a person in charge of finance C.

② The full amount stated in the note of payment is not related to the transaction of the instant goods, but is not useful for the Defendant.

For example, according to the letter of confirmation prepared by C representative, the amount of KRW 42 million and KRW 12.5 million out of the amount paid to the Defendant is not the price of the instant goods, but the cost of KRW A/S, etc. paid to the repair company “G”.

③ The e-mail dated August 16, 2012 is not sent individually by the Defendant, but sent as the representative director of the KCAB.

B. We examine (1) above, (3) argument.

As seen earlier, the Defendant prepared and awarded the instant payment note to F on August 15, 2012 with the individual qualification of the Plaintiff (not the representative of the Plaintiff).

In addition, the defendant sent e-mail to F following day (A No. 13-1), and there is an expression "the language is private part" in its contents.

It is clear that this means the letter of payment in this case.

Therefore, the above e-mail seems to have been sent by the defendant in his personal capacity.

In addition, as long as the Defendant promised to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages through e-mail, even if the addressee of the instant letter of payment was C, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the damages equivalent to the amount that the Plaintiff would have paid to E through the instant litigation.

Therefore, each of the above arguments by the defendant is without merit.

(2) We examine the above (2) argument.

As the defendant's argument, the whole amount stated in the letter of payment in this case is not related to the transaction of the goods in this case, and it is not useful for the defendant.