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.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells vessel parts, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who repairs a vessel engine under the trade name of “D.”

B. The Defendant was commissioned to check and repair the main engine, power generator, heat exchanger, pumps, etc. of 11 Dong-dong (hereinafter “instant vessel”) from the Dong-dong Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong-dong Shipping”) and performed the inspection from November 13, 2013 to the 21st of the same month.

(hereinafter “First Repair”). (c) At the time of the expiration of the third period after the first repair, the Defendant accepted the accident (hereinafter “Second Repair”) of the instant vessel due to the occurrence of the accident of the 5 pinton, etc. of the power generator of the instant vessel at the time of the second repair (hereinafter “Second Repair”).

From February 5, 2014 to March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied parts equivalent to KRW 2,235,600 (hereinafter “instant parts”) to repair the instant vessel power generator, etc. four times.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 3-9, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul 2, 3 and 4, witness E's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the price to the plaintiff, since the defendant ordered the part of this case to the plaintiff and repaired the second part.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the defendant did not have a duty to pay the part to the plaintiff, since the defendant merely provided services necessary for the inspection and repair of the ship of this case by the Gyeongdong Shipping, the defendant did not ordered the part of this case to the plaintiff, and the Gyeongdong Shipping agreed that the part of this case would be supplied.

B. We examine whether the price of the instant part should be paid, and the following circumstances, i.e., the instant part, after the completion of the first repair, can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence as seen earlier.