1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who processes and sells toilet partitions materials with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a company with the purpose of general construction business.

B. While the Defendant had been supplied with toilets partitions from D, it was defective in the resolution of temporary suspension of production at the general meeting of shareholders of D, and E, a director and a factory manager of D, was introduced to the Plaintiff as the representative director of D.

C. The Plaintiff completed the supply to each of the following places requested by the Defendant between March 19, 2015 and March 29, 2015, after processing toilets using materials such as HPM provided by the Defendant and materials possessed by the Defendant.

On March 19, 2015, the name at the scene of the date of the name at the designated site on March 21, 2015, GH on March 21, 2015, GHH on March 20, 2015, J on March 27, 2015: (a) the fact that there is no dispute over N on March 29, 2015, MM on March 28, 2015 (based on recognition); (b) Party A’s 1, 2, 7, 9, 10 evidence; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings on March 29, 2015, as a whole, on March 27, 2015, J. 2015.

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of toilets, and the toilet partitions completed by processing materials, such as HPM, from March 19, 2015 to March 29, 2015 under the said contract were supplied to the place designated by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant ought to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 16,607,50, and damages for delay.

G I H H H L M J M KN

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant only traded with D and did not conclude a contract with the Plaintiff for the supply of toilet partitions. However, D’s subcontract was made to the Plaintiff to supply toilet partitions to the Defendant. 2) The evidence No. 27, which is the estimate of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the instant case, is not only written by the Plaintiff, but it is difficult to believe that the said estimate includes PB products, which the Defendant paid to D as self-sufficiency materials, or products that the Defendant paid to D, are included in PB products.

3. The Plaintiff.