1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. In relation to the construction of a new ground telecom, such as Gyeong-gun C, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, a corporation subcontracted the construction of reinforced concrete to the Defendant on July 11, 2012.

B. On July 13, 2012, the Defendant re-subcontracted to D the construction of a food house, etc. during the said construction (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. From August 9, 2012 to November 8, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied construction materials, such as steel products and sti pumps equivalent to 21,290,800 won in total at the construction site at the above construction site. On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 5,00,000 out of the above price from the Defendant’s side.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), witness D of the first instance court, witness E of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff supplied construction materials to the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay the balance to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's alleged construction materials (other than styp) that entered into a sales contract with the plaintiff is not D but the defendant. Since the defendant has already paid the price of 5 million won for the styp purchased directly by the defendant, the defendant is not obligated to pay the money claimed by the plaintiff.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the entire pleading and entry into evidence No. 5, Eul introduced the plaintiff to the defendant as a steel processor for the instant construction, and Eul, upon such introduction, the defendant requested D to supply hardware from the plaintiff and carry out the instant construction, and the witness E at the trial refused to supply hardware on credit because the plaintiff is not aware of D at the first time, but he testified that transaction had started due to E's snowation, etc. In light of the above testimony, the plaintiff seems to have not supplied hardware at the construction site at the site of this case as expected solely to be credit, and the plaintiff thereafter.