1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on April 7, 2014 for the purpose of advertising and visual design business, compilation design business, etc., and the Defendant is a company established on December 7, 2016 for the purpose of clothes and textile manufacturing and sales business.

B. On July 16, 2017, the Defendant concluded an agreement with C on the following terms (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

The main contents are as follows:

Loan Agreements and Methods of Support

1. Amount of support: All the relevant expenses not later than the completion of the project;

2. Method and date of settlement: Settlement when export advance payment and accounts payable are recovered;

3. Revenue distribution: The grant of this loan shall be paid in the manner of borrowing the profit only to C, after settling accounts in the relevant security body and paying the profit to 5:5, and the disbursement shall not be made unless C is authorized to confirm the amount, and all legal responsibilities, such as the occurrence of accounts receivable, accounts payable, and accounts payable, arising in the course of performing all duties, shall run as the obligor C's responsibility.

C. On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice consisting of the Defendant and the total amount of KRW 6,268,900 (i.e., supply price of KRW 5,699,000) (i.e., supply price of KRW 5,69,900), which is the production of PEP samples, other than the treatment washing machine.

The Plaintiff received KRW 2.7 million from the account in the name of the Defendant on September 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) In the first place, the Plaintiff, who was requested by the Defendant’s employee C to place an order for the production of a sample of advertising materials, supplied KRW 18,670,080 from September 2017 to January 2018, and received KRW 2,70,000 among them. Accordingly, the Defendant, as a party to a transaction, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the goods price of KRW 15,970,080, and damages for delay thereof. 2) In the second place, the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, is also C.