1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that on September 30, 2015, the Defendant was supplied a total of KRW 253,800,000 to the Defendant (i.e., 118,80,000 (i.e., sh-31 model 1,080, 118,800,000, shh-21 model shh-21 model 1,500,000).

However, according to the records, it is evident that the Defendant stated the grounds for appeal on October 17, 2016, stating that “the Defendant was supplied to the Plaintiff with the 2,580 SKS 2,580 supply from the Plaintiff,” on the first day for pleading of the first instance trial held on November 4, 2016, stating that “the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was supplied with the 2,580 SKS 2,580 supply from the Plaintiff on September 30, 2015.”

Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, a confession in court was established as to the fact of the delivery of the SK IP camera.

Furthermore, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole and the arguments, the fact that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant the sum total of KRW 253,800,000 can be acknowledged.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that, through the oral statement at the date of the third pleading of the trial held on December 20, 2016 and the third day of the trial held on April 7, 2017, “No one has received from the Plaintiff a delivery of shh-21 model 1,500 among the SKIP Cas,” the Defendant’s assertion that this assertion is understood to the purport that the confession as to the delivery facts should be revoked.

The proviso of Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that confession contrary to the truth may be revoked only when it is proved that it has been due to mistake.

The testimony of the witness A of the trial court is the evidence that the confession of the defendant seems to be consistent with the truth that the defendant was supplied with the 2,580 SK IP camera 2,580 by the plaintiff.

However, A, among the 2,580 SK IP Canada 2,580 Phh-31 model 1,080, was supplied, and 'Chh-31' was called 'Chb' after Chb.

the sh-21 Models 1,500.