1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person running a business of supplying and installing kitchen furniture, etc. in the name of "D" in Gunsan City C, and the Defendant is a person who newly constructs a multi-family house in Gunsan City E.

B. On April 201, the Plaintiff supplied and installed the Defendant’s multi-family house at the same multi-family house.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, F of the concerned party witness F, G's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff would pay the price to the plaintiff while requesting the delivery and installation of the Washington, etc., and concluded a supply contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and supplied and installed the plaintiff's multi-family house, etc., so the plaintiff is obligated to pay the price for the goods and the installation cost of KRW 11,100,000, and damages for delay.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that F was merely a contract for the construction of the above multi-family house, including all households, such as singkes and shoess, while ordering F to do so, and that it did not conclude a contract for the supply and installation of singkes with the plaintiff.

B. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply and installation of Washington, etc. solely with the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and witness G of the trial, and witness G of the trial, and testimony of F, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the testimony of F of the witness of the trial court, the defendant concluded a contract with F as a contract period for the construction of the above multi-family house. It is acknowledged that the defendant entered into the contract with F. The following circumstances, namely, ① there is no objective evidence to deem that the contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, ② in the preparatory documents dated December 10, 2013 in relation to the process of entering into the contract, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant directly found the plaintiff as the plaintiff’s office and requested the supply of the goods on April 13, 201, but the court below decided September 23, 2014.