1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 7, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff calculated and sent to the defendant on July 8, 2014 the amount of the unpaid goods from August 26, 2011 to May 20, 2014 by facsimile. According to the details, the remaining amount of the goods excluding the amount of the C-learning vehicles and D agency vehicles and E vehicles 789,563 won is 789,563 won, and the defendant did not raise any objection accordingly; ② the amount of goods for D-board vehicles 67,00 won, the amount of goods 151,440 won, the amount of goods 1526, 926, 860 won for the goods ; and the amount of goods 360,570 won ; 369,750 won ;

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the settlement of the price for the goods unpaid, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the amount of the unpaid goods accumulated in the past as KRW 1,716,423, and thus, it is difficult to view that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Defendant, as alleged in the Defendant.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, namely, the statement that the plaintiff sent it to the plaintiff by facsimile on July 8, 2014, indicate the "uncontest" for the C-learninged vehicle, and the "I-716,423" for the D-learning vehicle, and the amount of KRW 1,716,423, which the defendant claimed to have settled, is the price for the goods for the remaining five vehicles except for the said C-learning vehicle and D-Korean vehicle.