1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. The fact that money was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant account on or around January 29, 2014 does not conflict between the parties.

In addition, it can be recognized by the evidence A3. 2. The assertion and judgment of the parties related to the above remittance

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would be supplied with the by-products of pigs from the Defendant, and paid KRW 13 million as above under the name of the deposit.

However, the defendant did not supply the plaintiff with the by-products of pigs.

Therefore, the defendant should return to the plaintiff 13 million won (and damages for delay).

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) is the person who actually operates the Plaintiff is D who is the father of C’s representative.

In addition, D is operating "F" in the name of E, his/her father.

Ultimately, the plaintiff and the F are family companies.

D The Defendant would be supplied with by-products, etc. of pigs, and transferred 13 million won in the name of the Plaintiff.

The defendant supplied the equivalent amount of goods to F in accordance with D's instructions.

(2) As such, the above KRW 13 million is not the deposit but the amount of goods.

However, the transaction between the plaintiff (or D) and the defendant has been terminated on March 2014 and the settlement has been completed.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription period(three years) has already expired.

C. (1) Determination (1) Although KRW 13 million was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account, it is evident that the Defendant did not supply the Plaintiff’s goods with KRW 13 million.

Therefore, the facts of the plaintiff's assertion can be recognized.

On the contrary, the actual subject who remitted the amount of KRW 13 million to the Defendant is D, and the Defendant bears the burden of proving that the goods of KRW 13 million have been supplied to F in accordance with D’s instructions. All of the Defendant is not sufficient to recognize it solely with the descriptions of subparagraphs B through 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the goods supply agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is the duty of the defendant to supply the goods by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case at the latest.