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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the liquor and beverage wholesale business, and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who operates the entertainment tavern under the trade name of “B”.

B. The Defendant was supplied with alcoholic beverages from a limited liability company and the Plaintiff. Around September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 16,727,400 against the Defendant’s goods payment claim against the Defendant from the same alcoholic beverages, and continued to supply alcoholic beverages to the Defendant.

C. As of November 18, 2016, the amount of unpaid alcoholic beverages paid to the Defendant to the Plaintiff, including the claims that the Plaintiff acquired, is KRW 11,552,400.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 11,52,400 for alcoholic beverages and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 13, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

B. The defendant supplied alcoholic beverages worth KRW 2,460,00 with the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 2,460,000, and argued that the unpaid amount remains as a result of the payment. However, according to each of the evidence Nos. 4 through 6, the defendant paid the defendant a price higher than the amount of alcoholic beverages directly supplied by the plaintiff. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant agreed to engage in alcoholic beverage transactions with the plaintiff on the premise that the plaintiff who acquired the claim for unpaid alcoholic beverages against the defendant of the same Dong-gu alcoholic beverage was paid the price. In light of the above, it is insufficient to reverse the specification of transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant, which was acknowledged as above.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.