1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 19, 2015, the Defendant contracted “D-type D-type Newly built construction work” to C.

B. The Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed at the construction site above.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment as to the main claim (request for the price of goods under a supply contract)

A. On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a supply contract with the Defendant to supply ready-mixed, and accordingly supplied ready-mixed.

The defendant is obligated to pay the price for the supply of ready-mixeds and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the purport of this Court’s witness E, part of C’s testimony (excluding parts not trusted in the front and rear), and the entire pleading, witness E and C’s testimony of this Court and the Defendant do not believe that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a ready-mixed supply contract, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

The plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

1) The agreement on the supply of ready-mixed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant does not exist, and there is no objective document to prove it, such as a certificate of delivery with the Defendant’s signature and seal, and a certificate of acceptance of goods. The sales ledger presented by the Plaintiff (Evidence A) is unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff, and there is no signature and seal of the Defendant. The mere fact that the name and resident registration number of the Defendant are stated in the above sales ledger cannot be readily concluded that the contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 2) The Plaintiff’s employee E and the contractor are both the parties requesting the Plaintiff to supply ready-mixed

In addition, C testified that, at the request of the Plaintiff during the construction work, the Defendant would pay back to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 30 million.