The judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

claim. The purport of the claim.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) while running a construction business with the trade name of “C” from around 2014 to around 2018, the Defendant supplied ready-mixeds equivalent to KRW 146,976,00 from the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 5,520,000, KRW 2,198, KRW 141,456,000, KRW 136,976,000, out of the price.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 10,000,000 and the delayed damages.

2. The following circumstances, which can be known by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including numbers), i.e., ① there is no goods supply contract, etc. between the plaintiff and the defendant on the supply of ready-mixeds, ② there is no evidence to acknowledge that the supply site of ready-mixeds listed in the plaintiff’s client(s client evidence No. 1) directly constructed by the defendant or leased construction machinery, and ③ the plaintiff supplied ready-mixeds to the defendant.

During the period of assertion, the Defendant served as an employee in the food service company located in friendliness, ④ The authenticity of each payment written by the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant would repay KRW 10 million until May 31, 2019,” was not proven, ⑤ the Defendant’s penal D was working as an employee of the Plaintiff until November 2018, and was in charge of ready-mixed business, etc., and it appears that D was issued tax invoices that are different from the actual transactional relationship using the Defendant’s name. In light of the above, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed to the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is rejected.

3. Thus, the claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked.