The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the part concerning the defendant among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part concerning the defendant among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court adds the judgment of this court as to the defendant's assertion as the reasons of appeal in paragraph 2. Thus, the relevant part is cited in accordance with the main sentence

The two and six parallels of the first instance judgment “Defendants” shall be used as “Defendants and Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “Co-Defendant B”)” and “Defendants” shall be used as “Defendants and Co-Defendant B of the first instance judgment.”

Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”) shall be used for “Defendant B Co-Defendant B” in the third instance of the judgment of the first instance, and Defendant B shall be used for “Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial,” and both Defendant B and Co-Defendant B shall be applied.

2. The abbreviation of this court’s additional judgment is based on the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. The Defendant asserted that the value of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff was KRW 366,490,411 in total, and the Defendant paid KRW 413,269,870 in excess of the above price to the Plaintiff as the repayment of the goods.

Even if the amount of KRW 34,00,000, which was returned to the Defendant from the above total amount of payment, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff in excess of KRW 12,779,759 ( KRW 413,269,870 - KRW 366,490,411 - KRW 34,000).

Moreover, on December 28, 2015, KRW 49,930,111 of the total value of the above goods was issued only by the Plaintiff without any actual transaction of the goods. Therefore, there is no claim for the price of the goods corresponding thereto. Accordingly, the Defendant paid all the price of the goods to the Plaintiff.

B. Specific determination 1) As cited earlier in the assertion of excess repayment, the amount that the Defendant deemed to have paid to the Plaintiff as the price for the goods is 345,697,441, as well as the amount that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant claimed KRW 67,572,429 as indicated below (the Defendant’s assertion).