1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 27, Eul evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (including each number), respectively, may be admitted by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

The plaintiff has completed business registration under the trade name of "B", and is engaged in the business of selling stone, and the defendant is a company performing stone construction works mainly.

B. From November 8, 2011 to September 21, 2015, the Plaintiff continued to supply various stones to the Defendant. As of January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff had a claim against the Defendant for the stone purchase price of KRW 54,508,697 against the Defendant, and the subsequent transaction of stone between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was related to the transaction related to the “C”, “D”, “E”, and “P” (hereinafter “instant four sites”) and the transaction related to the “Seol City.”

C. On March 21, 2016, when the instant lawsuit was pending in the first instance trial, the Defendant paid KRW 120,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the stone price. On November 2, 2016, after the first instance judgment was rendered, the Defendant paid KRW 46,495,097 to the Plaintiff as the stone price.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff supplied various building stones equivalent to KRW 198,413,116 to the Defendant, and received KRW 120,00,000 from the Defendant as the building stones price. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid building stones amounting to KRW 78,413,116 (=198,413,116 - 120,000,000) and the delay damages therefor. (ii) As seen below, the agreement on the reduction of the building stones as of September 24, 2015 on the condition that the Defendant pays the unpaid building stones amount before 2015. The Defendant did not comply with the premise of the above reduction agreement, and thus, the said agreement has no effect.

B. The Plaintiff between the Defendant and the Defendant on September 24, 2015, and KRW 34,420,192 were asserted by the Plaintiff on the stone price related to the four sites of the instant case.