1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. From February 4, 2012 to November 3, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant should pay the above ready-mixed price and damages for delay, since the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed to the scene of the Defendant’s A business from February 4, 2012 to November 3, 2013.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed to the Defendant’s A business site, but the head of the government-funded headquarters (Evidence A2) submitted by the Plaintiff was prepared by the Plaintiff himself/herself, and it is insufficient to recognize the existence of the Defendant’s payment of ready-mixed solely with the head of the government-funded headquarters under the circumstances where the Defendant contests the existence of the payment of ready-mixed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(B) The Plaintiff’s claim is subject to the extinctive prescription period of three years, and the Plaintiff’s claim is final on February 7, 2017, when three years have elapsed since the delivery of ready-mixed. As to the conjunctive claim, the Plaintiff’s claim terminated by prescription. 2. In order to receive the payment of ready-mixed, the construction supervisor who is a public official belonging to the Defendant must conduct an examination. Since the construction supervisor B unfairly delayed the inspection and did not receive the said ready-mixed payment, the Defendant, who is the employer, should pay KRW 15,018,785, which is the amount equivalent to the above ready-mixed claim, as damages. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is.

In addition, the conjunctive claim added by this court is dismissed on the ground that it is not reasonable.