1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The plaintiff's assertion by the plaintiff is that the defendant who operates a livestock farming business under the trade name of "C" entered into a construction machinery maintenance contract, and performed the defendant's construction machinery maintenance services on 23 occasions from January 5, 2012 to May 19, 2012 under the above construction machinery maintenance contract. The maintenance cost amounts to 12,714,800 won, and the defendant paid KRW 300,000 among them to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of 12,414,800 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion "C" is not the defendant, but the defendant is merely a person who operates the livestock industry in the name of "C", and there was no construction machinery maintenance contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. In addition, among the maintenance records asserted by the plaintiff, the total of six maintenance records from January 28, 2012 to February 2, 2012 constitute the maintenance records of the private equipment of other companies, not the construction machinery of "C" operated by "C", and D fully pays the construction machinery maintenance costs claimed by the plaintiff.

Judgment

According to Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, it is recognized that the defendant's signature is written on the part of the acquirer of the transaction specification statement submitted by the plaintiff.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (a) evidence Nos. 1-5 through 23, Eul evidence Nos. 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings; (b) there is no construction machinery maintenance contract between the plaintiff and the defendant; (c) D, not the defendant, has continued to operate the business since July 1, 1991; and (c) the defendant has been employed as C from February 9, 2009 as an employee of C; (c) upon the plaintiff’s presentation of a transaction statement, the defendant signed as a employee of C; and (d) the part of the consignee of the remaining transaction statement other than the above transaction statement is written as E or F.