1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that manufactures ready-mixed and sells aggregate at the above location, and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who engages in construction business with the trade name “C” at the above address.

Between December 10, 2015 and January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied 300 cubic meters in total to the construction site of building E located in Ulsan-gu and Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do (hereinafter “instant construction site”) at the Defendant’s request, and the price for the supply was 21,037,280 cubic meters in total. Thus, the Defendant did not pay the price.

B. On December 2015, the Defendant subcontracted the completion of the structural construction from G contractors at the construction site for the construction of a new building located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “F site”) and paid the price of KRW 14,125,980 on December 14, 2015 after receiving a subcontract from the Plaintiff for the completion of the structural construction.

The Defendant did not perform any construction work at each construction site of this case claimed by the Plaintiff, and there is no fact that the Defendant was supplied with ready-mixed from the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. First, neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant prepared a supply contract regarding the supply of ready-mixeds at each construction site of this case.

Meanwhile, according to the statement No. 1 and the response of the order to submit taxation information to the head of the Dongsan Tax Office of this Court, the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice of KRW 20,892,960 on December 31, 2015, and KRW 144,320 on January 31, 2016, respectively, to the Defendant. The total amount is 21,037,280, which the Plaintiff sought in this case. The Defendant approved each of the above tax invoices and filed a final tax return with the competent tax office, and filed the return with the purchase amount.

B. However, in full view of the evidence mentioned above and the result of each fact-finding conducted by the first instance court on each of the construction sites of this case, the whole purport of the pleadings is as follows: ① “Gulsan” in some of the above tax invoices.