1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 16, 2016, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to contact with the head of the Defendant, and the head of the ice processed by the complete storage method of 30-50T thick.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). B.

On August 17, 2016, the Defendant, under the name of China Company B (hereinafter referred to as “B”), issued a invoice with the name “defluence”, “wholly 30-50T”, and the amount “5,850 US dollars” to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, on August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff disbursed 960 U.S. dollars 860, Aug. 31, 2016, and 4,990 U.S. dollars 4,99, respectively, in Korean currency, and disbursed 960,688 won and 5,592,692 won converted into Korean currency. The Plaintiff spent 18,000 won and 23,000 won with the overseas remittance fee.

On September 16, 2016, the Plaintiff spent KRW 3,015,206 as the cost of export and import logistics, including customs duties.

C. The goods shipped by the Defendant regarding the instant contract was an illegal heading point.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 2, 3, 10, 24, 28 through 32, 37 through 41 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to be supplied with full-scale straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw straw 2

B. The defendant as a member in charge of the business of the defendant C was ordered by the plaintiff, and thus the party to the contract of this case is not the defendant but the representative of C.

It means the method of constructing a stone to be satisfed, and the type of satisfy and the type of satfy is expressed.

The unit price is higher than $21,00, and the standards shall be determined and ordered by drawings normally due to the importance of the standards.

However, the plaintiff on August 16, 2016.