1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport. A. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.

On April 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) and supplied approximately KRW 248,604,000 (including value-added tax) files at the construction site located in Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do from April 28, 2017 to May 26, 2017.

(The plaintiff asserted that he first concluded the goods supply contract with the defendant, but the court of first instance changed the arguments on the parties to the above goods supply contract in the preparatory document dated August 12, 2019.

The Defendant concluded a contract with C for civil engineering works, etc. on the construction site at the above construction site, and confirmed the Plaintiff’s above goods and received them directly, and the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff the price for the goods as agreed to receive the construction cost from C.

C. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 4,00,000, out of the amount of goods supplied at the above construction site. The Defendant is a person who directly received and used the said goods from the Plaintiff or a person who agreed to pay the price of goods to the Plaintiff, and is obligated to pay the same amount as the stated in the claim to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. First, there is no particular dispute that the Defendant received and used the Plaintiff’s goods at the construction site of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

However, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected, solely on the fact that the Defendant received and used goods supplied pursuant to the goods supply contract entered into with the Plaintiff and C at the construction site. It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff bears the obligation to pay for any goods.

B. Next, as to whether the Defendant agreed on the payment of the goods to the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize it only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the evidence of the remaining submission of the Plaintiff, which appears to be unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff, as to whether the Defendant agreed on the payment of the goods to the Plaintiff.