1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff decided to sell five sets to the Defendant, and delivered five sets to the Defendant on June 20, 2017.

B. In a case where the Plaintiff excluded the entire amount of money received from the Defendant via C, the fact that the remainder that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties.

C. The Plaintiff is a person who received KRW 3.3 million from the Defendant through C. D.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint with C on the grounds that C remitted money of KRW 3,30,000 among KRW 7,930,000,000 received from the Defendant to the Plaintiff under the pretext of “I pay to the Plaintiff as the content payment,” and embezzled the remaining KRW 4,630,000.

C was indicted by embezzlement, etc. of 2018 Godan401, Seogu District Court 201, and was convicted on November 14, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 4.7 million won for the remainder of the goods (=8 million won - 3.3 million won) and 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from June 21, 2017 to December 12, 2017, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, from June 21, 2017, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant agreed between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C, that the Defendant would pay the remainder of the goods, excluding the down payment, to C on behalf of the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant paid the remainder of the goods to C by paying eight million won of the remainder of the goods.

According to some of the statements in the evidence Nos. 4-1 and 4-2, the plaintiff is deemed to have urged C to pay the remainder of the goods, but it is recognized that the defendant has to pay the remainder of the goods.