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. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the defendant asserts as evidence additionally submitted at the court of first instance, that is, the plaintiff actually supplied steel to the non-party company, and without the intention of the plaintiff to vest the rights and duties arising from the appearance of transaction between the plaintiff and the non-party company, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant would be aware that the defendant supplied steel materials from the plaintiff and supplied them to the non-party company without the intention of the plaintiff to vest in the rights and duties between the plaintiff and the non-party company, and the testimony of the witness E (the actual manager of the defendant) at the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition or dismissal as follows, it is consistent with the reasoning of the court of first instance.

At the bottom of the 4th judgment of the first instance court, “The fact that the defendant does not greatly deviate from the ordinary profit” is added to “(the cost that the defendant paid for the purpose of gaining such profit is almost little).”

From the fourth to the 7th to the steel product distribution industry, “the fact that the steel product was released” was “from the fourth to the fifth to the 5th 6th 6th 6th ,” the Plaintiff appears to be “the Plaintiff directly delivered the steel product to the work site via the transportation company, and received the signature of the field officer in charge in the future of the Defendant (where the steel product in storage is insufficient, the upper supplier ordered the upper supplier to deliver the steel product directly to the site) and prepared and issued a transaction statement and tax invoice to the Defendant, and such transaction method was not different from the normal transaction made between the other consumers and the other consumers.”

The 5th 9th 9th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 60.

2. Conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is the same.