1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a seller, holds a sales contract for products manufactured on May 16, 2013, with the content that each of the Plaintiff, as “the seller, D, the seller, the producer, the increase in quantity, the quantity of products, the volume of 100 square meters, the contract amount of KRW 10 million (7 million in advance, the balance of KRW 3 million in advance, and the balance of KRW 3 million),” to sell the increase in the number of the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter) The sales contract that the Plaintiff entered into for the sale of Mayman is called the “instant contract.” Of the above contracts, the buyer’s term is printed in the same word, and there is no signature or seal in the name subsequent thereto.

B. C Operation of “E” (hereinafter “E”) with respect to sale and purchase of special crops, such as math, and brokerage companies, died around July 4, 2013, and D is an employee who served in E.

(c) The heir of C is the defendant and F, who is an son.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 3-1, fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for the price of goods against the party to the contract of this case

A. On May 16, 2013, the plaintiff's assertion 1) entered into the contract of this case with the defendant who was practically involved in the operation of E on May 16, 2013 that the plaintiff would sell the 100 square meters of 100 square meters to the defendant. On the same day, the plaintiff was paid the 7 million won advance payment from the defendant, but the defendant was not paid the remaining 3 million won, and the defendant was not obligated to pay the remaining 3 million won and its delay damages to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant's assertion did not enter into the contract of this case with the plaintiff, and the defendant did not participate in the operation of E. However, his father lending the account in the name of the defendant to his father C, and there was only remittance through the above account in the name of his father C and there is no obligation to pay the above balance to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1-No. 3-1, 1-2