Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff's acceptance intervenor, which orders payment below.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff (i.e., withdrawal; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) was a secondary subcontractor that received the supply of ten parts of the first parts related to the “Ethab,” which is a fixed device for vehicle hand from the Intervenor, the primary subcontractor of Korea MM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea branchM”), and the Defendant entered into a subcontract to supply the said parts to the Plaintiff on November 201, by a business operator who manufactures and supplies the automobile parts in the trade name “D.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied the above automobile parts supplied by the Defendant, which is the third subcontractor, to the assignee, and the assignee supplied the above automobile parts to the NA again, and the assignee supplied the above automobile parts to the NA, and the transferee directly provided the Defendant with gold-type 21 punishment and steel materials necessary for its production.

On January 2, 2012, the Defendant sent an e-mail attached to the Plaintiff via D Director G, along with the content of “I wish to cooperate, and to return to the Plaintiff.” (hereinafter “instant estimate sheet”) attached to the same content as attached Form 1.

The Plaintiff did not pay 931,937 out of the said automobile parts (hereinafter “instant parts”) from November 23, 2011 to July 10, 2012.

1. The plaintiff and the defendant shall agree with each other, terminate the transaction, and draw up a written agreement on it and notarized as follows:

2. The plaintiff shall pay 625 billion won to the defendant as agreed upon.

3. The plaintiff does not raise any objection to the defendant with respect to the agreed contents.

4. The Plaintiff shall take over the gold scrap for the supply of gold in his custody, and does not raise an objection to the shortage of the supply materials.

5. The defendant shall return processed goods (products) to the plaintiff.

The defendant around July 13, 2012 is about the part of the automobile supplied by the plaintiff to the plaintiff until now.