The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a stock company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling ready-mixed, and the defendant is a person registered as a business operator with the trade name C.

B. From September 22, 2017 to November 15, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixeds equivalent to KRW 9,545,305 out of KRW 9,545,305 to the E church site located in Jeonju-si. On February 28, 2018, the Plaintiff was reimbursed KRW 3,00,000 out of KRW 9,545,305.

(c)

On September 22, 2017, through November 15, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed equivalent to KRW 9,545,305 (including value added tax) of the total supply price from September 22, 2017 to November 15, 2018, and issued an electronic tax invoice.

(d)

The Plaintiff was issued by F a written confirmation of the balance written on October 30, 2018 with the following content in the name of C.

I written payment (B) by November 30, 2018, as the price for ready-mixed supplied to the E church site of Won 5,629,555 won.

If it is possible to delay at any time, 15% of the delayed compensation shall be paid annually, and even if the plaintiff takes a civil or criminal legal measure, he/she does not raise any objection.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied ready-mixeds equivalent to KRW 9,545,305 from September 22, 2017 to November 15, 2018 (hereinafter “instant contract”); (b) performed the instant contract; and (c) paid only KRW 3,000,000 on February 28, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 6,545,305 (=9,545,305 - 3,000,000) and the delayed damages.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is an enterprise substantially operated by F, the former husband of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff requested the supply of ready-mixeds to F, the former husband of the Plaintiff, not itself, and the Defendant did not have been involved in the operation of C. Therefore, the Plaintiff is unpaid to the Plaintiff.