Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 90,940,00 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from August 18, 2015 to April 19, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, an employee of the Korea Fishery Products Wholesale and Retail Trade Association (hereinafter “D”) in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, was in charge of trading with the Defendant, and the Defendant was engaged in fishery products sales business under the name of E.

B. From August 30, 201 to December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with an aggregate of KRW 476,301,060 in the name of D, and the Defendant paid the price of the above goods to the Plaintiff. The amount of goods that the Plaintiff was not paid in cash or in the name of the Plaintiff’s father’s F, is KRW 11,340,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, 5, Gap evidence 6-1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that he was responsible for the transaction with the defendant and paid the unpaid goods to D. The defendant's unpaid goods amounted to KRW 111,340,000.

Therefore, the above amount and damages for delay shall be claimed to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the amount of unpaid goods, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 111,340,000 for the unpaid goods and the delay damages therefor.

B. (1) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not trade the trade name “G” (A) The Defendant’s assertion that the transaction price was based on the sales place account and the specifications of transaction indicated in “G”, but the Defendant did not trade with “G” in the name of “G”.

(B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the fact-finding on the H representative director of this court, the judgment of Gap Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6-1 through 7, and Gap’s evidence Nos. 8 through 13, and the fact-finding on the H representative director of this court, it is determined that the "G" recorded as a transactional item in the sales ledger (Evidence No. 5) and the specifications of transaction (Evidence No. 6) prepared by the plaintiff means the defendant.

Therefore, there was no trade between “G”.