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 followed by paragraph (1).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a fertilizer sales store under the trade name of “C”.

B. On October 3, 2015, the Defendant received the supply of fertilizers equivalent to KRW 8,268,000 from the Plaintiff on October 3, 2015.

C. Around November 2015, D paid KRW 2 million out of the price of the said fertilizer to the Plaintiff as the money received from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness D's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the fertilizer price of KRW 6,268,00 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from October 4, 2015 to July 17, 2018, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion 1) is supplied with fertilizers from Dong-in who is a birthist D, and it is not supplied by the plaintiff.

In other words, D purchased fertilizers from the plaintiff and again supplied them to the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not a party to the supply of fertilizers in relation to the defendant.

B) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings by D’s testimony as to whether D is the party to a fertilizer transaction, the Defendant paid D the total amount of KRW 9 million, including the price of an Oral seedling, and paid D the price of the fertilizer from the Plaintiff. (2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, D’s request for mediation for the sale of the fertilizer was made from 2013 to the Plaintiff. For that reason, it is recognized that the Defendant was supplied with the fertilizer through D, and at the time, the Defendant was also the Plaintiff, and that D was well aware of the fact that it was merely an arrangement for the sale of the fertilizer, the party to the fertilizer transaction is not the Defendant and D, but the Defendant and the Plaintiff.