1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,711,861 as well as to the plaintiff on September 19, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2011, the Plaintiff supplied the flowers to the Defendant operating “C”.

B. The fireworks that the Plaintiff did not receive from the Defendant were KRW 391,70 in 201, KRW 1,465,640 in 201, and KRW 512,100 in 201.

On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the payment of goods. On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff rendered a decision of performance recommendation that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 2,369,440 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment (hereinafter “the instant decision of performance recommendation”). The said decision was served on the Defendant on February 23, 2015, and became final and conclusive on March 10, 2015.

C. Even after the decision on the instant performance recommendation, the Plaintiff continued to supply the flowers to the Defendant, and the amount that was paid in 2015 is KRW 88,860, and the amount that was paid in 2016 is KRW 927,351, and the amount that was paid in 2017 is KRW 726,210.

The Defendant paid KRW 10,00,00 to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2015, KRW 500,000, KRW 500,000 on January 4, 2016, KRW 300,000 on January 30, 2016, KRW 300,00 on July 14, 2016, KRW 300,00 on February 6, 2017, KRW 200,00 on December 16, 2017, and KRW 10,000 on June 8, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a fireworks equivalent to KRW 4,911,861 in total from 2011 to 2017, and received KRW 2,200,000 from the Defendant.

The remainder of the repayment made by the Defendant is KRW 2,711,861 if the principal is appropriated.

The decision on the execution recommendation of this case was made without specifying the defendant's resident registration number, and it was impossible to execute the execution due to a specific defect in the party's name.

Therefore, there is a benefit to protect the rights of re-litigants over the price of goods from 2011 to 2013.

B. Determination 1: the fireworks of 201, 2012, and 2013.