1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings (including the fact that there is no dispute) with Gap's testimony by the witness witness Gap, the fact that Alco&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter " Alco&C") received a subcontract from the defendant on February 20, 2014 of the new construction of Jongno-gu Officetel, Jongno-gu Seoul, Seoul, for the construction of new infrastructure and metal works, and each of the above construction works for remodeling of the building of Socob Lifelong Building at Incheon and Jeonju-si (hereinafter "each of the above construction works"), and the plaintiff received an order from Alco&C to request the delivery of construction materials from the construction site of this case, and from March 2014 to August 2014, each of the above construction sites of this case, the fact that the plaintiff supplied various construction materials equivalent to the total amount of KRW 18,061,912 (including value-added tax).

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserts that Alco C&C requested the Defendant to pay the price of the above construction materials directly to the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant consented, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 13,906,442 in balance of the price of the above construction materials to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant did not directly pay the price of the above construction materials to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not pay the said price of the supplied materials to AlcoC, and paid the re-subcontract to AlcoC in full.

B. Therefore, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 6-1, and Eul evidence 6-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings as to Gap's testimony, AlcoWC requested the defendant to pay directly to the plaintiff the construction cost supplied by the plaintiff at the construction site of this case at the early stage of the execution of each of the construction of this case. The defendant issued the defendant's business registration certificate to the plaintiff so that tax invoices can be issued, and the defendant issued the value-added tax of KRW 3,53,750 in total from the plaintiff on March 31, 2014.