1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in fish farming business at the sea of the Dong Young-si, Si, and the Defendant is a person who engages in fish distribution business under the trade name of “D.”

B. On November 15, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Defendant to sell the high light language cultivated in the above aquaculture at KRW 28 million (e.g., December 30, 2014) (hereinafter “instant high light supply agreement”), and the Plaintiff supplied the high light language to the Defendant in accordance with the said agreement.

C. The Defendant, up to now, paid to the Plaintiff KRW 12 million out of the high-sea fishing price under the instant high-sea supply contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 16 million due from the high light payment ( = KRW 28 million with high light payment - KRW 12 million with high light payment) and damages for delay from August 4, 2016 to the date of full payment, which the Plaintiff seeks after the due date.

3. The defendant's assertion 1 argues that the defendant, not the plaintiff, entered into a supply contract with the plaintiff's husband E.

However, in light of the above basic facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant deposited part of the proceeds in the passbook in the name of the plaintiff, and the defendant prepared and delivered documents relating to the amount of the proceeds in order to pay the plaintiff on December 30, 2015. According to the second pleading protocol of the first instance court, the defendant can be recognized as having acknowledged that the defendant Gap 2, who was prepared on December 30, 2015, was liable to pay KRW 16 million to the plaintiff on the date of pleading and stated that "the signature is proper." Thus, the defendant is deemed to have concluded the supply contract of the high light oil in this case with the plaintiff.

The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is both E and J.