1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 73,332,790 and its relation thereto shall be from June 18, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells steel products, etc., and the Defendant has completed business registration under B, and is engaged in construction business, etc.

B. G Co., Ltd. (formerly named: C Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “C”) is a company that has a license for steel structure construction business (a steel structure), subcontracted D police stations, E elementary schools new construction business, Fents construction business, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. The Plaintiff supplied steel (hereinafter “instant materials”) at the construction site of the instant construction site. Of them, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking payment of the price for the goods unpaid under the Jeonju District Court 2012Kadan19098, as it did not receive the price for the goods in KRW 73,332,790. On March 7, 2013, the said court rendered a decision of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”) to the effect that “C shall pay the price for the unpaid goods to the Plaintiff KRW 73,332,790, which was determined around that time.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since a person who received the instant materials from the Plaintiff’s assertion is not C but the Defendant borrowed its name, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the price of the goods unpaid and the damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C to seek payment of the unpaid amount of goods and sought payment of the same amount of goods again against the defendant even though the decision of recommending settlement became final and conclusive. Thus, the lawsuit of this case violates the principle of res judicata or is in violation of res judicata. 2) The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case to seek payment of the same amount of goods in return for fear that the plaintiff would not receive the unpaid amount of goods from C regardless of the existence of the decision of recommending settlement