1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) supplied building materials to the Defendant Company from around 2005 in the course of operating D. The Plaintiff acquired the Defendant Company’s sales property from D around May 2013 and acquired the Defendant Company’s goods payment claim. Since the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with building materials up to August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 64,726,801, including the goods payment claim acquired from C, and delayed payment damages therefrom. (2) The Defendant’s claim for the payment of the goods payment claim against the Defendant Company based on the transaction ledger and transaction statement unilaterally prepared.

The Defendant Company was not notified of the assignment of claims by C and the Plaintiff, and KJ signed in the transaction specification sheet as of January 13, 2014, or confirmed it. Since the Defendant Company was not an employee of the Defendant Company, nor was it authorized to approve the obligation on behalf of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company cannot be deemed to have approved the assignment of claims.

Therefore, the Plaintiff can only claim the price for the goods for the transaction after June 2013, which was after the transaction with the Defendant Company.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the remaining amount of the goods price in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (each of the following facts or circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, it is reasonable to deem that the transaction ledger and the transaction statement submitted by the plaintiff as evidence was prepared according to the actual goods transaction details.

The defendant asserted that M confirmed that there was no obligation owed by the defendant company to the plaintiff when acquiring the defendant company from the inheritor E, and submitted the evidence No. 5 as evidence, but the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, according to the above trading ledger and the trading list, the plaintiff and the defendant company.