1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the plaintiff corresponding to the next order of payment is revoked.

The defendant.

Based on the facts, the Plaintiff is a company engaging in the business of wholesale business, electronic commerce business, etc., and the Defendant (the Defendant was merged with the Defendant Seoul Urban Industry Co., Ltd. prior to the process of the instant lawsuit on August 1, 2013; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) is a company engaging in the business of electronic commerce and related distribution.

A (hereinafter referred to as “A”) and B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) are companies handling steel products.

E is a representative director of A, D is a director of A, and C is a person who actually controls the management of A and B.

On June 1, 2012, the Defendant and A entered into a supply contract with the content that the Defendant would supply steel products to A.

In the goods supply contract, the Defendant and A provided that if the goods ordered by the Defendant are supplied to the designated place, A shall confirm the quantity of the goods and the grounds for disqualification and issue a certificate of acceptance without any error, and shall pay the price for the goods on the 25th of the following month of the delivery date.

On June 13, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of goods with Posco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Posco”) to purchase steel products of KRW 2 billion per year in order to supply goods to A.

Afterward, from July 6, 2012 to October 9, 2012, the Defendant received orders for steel products equivalent to KRW 2,012,960,984 on three occasions from A, and supplied them to A.

The Plaintiff and B’s participation C and E find the Plaintiff’s F around June 2012, and explain to the effect that “The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, having a steel product transaction case with the Defendant, can increase sales if the Plaintiff participated, and the commission may also increase more than 4%. The Plaintiff has a code to trade sco and goods, and the Defendant is a subsidiary of the Seoul Urban Gas Group, and there is no problem in recovering the price.”