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. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the heat of construction from December 2, 2016 to November 2017, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 90,239,446 to the Plaintiff out of the price of supplied goods of the above building group, without dispute between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 90,239,446 won and damages for delay payable to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First of all, the defendant's representative director C used the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against the defendant as the secured claim and provided a physical guarantee as to the real estate owned by the plaintiff. Thus, it is unreasonable to institute the lawsuit of this case even though the plaintiff could be fully paid the price of goods at the auction procedure by exercising the right to collateral security. However, considering the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case in order to obtain an executive title as to the claim for the price of goods, and that it cannot be readily concluded that the above claim is fully repaid at the auction procedure to exercise the right to collateral, it is difficult to view the lawsuit of this case as unlawful solely on the ground that

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Next, the defendant asserts that the price for the goods supplied by the plaintiff for which the delivery certificate and the test report have not been issued cannot be paid. However, there is no evidence to prove that there is any defect such as the delivery certificate and the test report not issued among the goods supplied by the plaintiff, as alleged by the defendant, and instead, according to each of the Gap evidence No. 5 (including each number), it is recognized that the defendant took over all the goods supplied by the plaintiff normally.