1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Defendant was awarded a contract for the production and supply of sanitary fire fighting and HAVC materials from Tae-Non Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tai-N”), and that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 69,165,057 out of the price paid by the Defendant even though he produced and supplied the subcontracted goods.

As to this, the defendant claimed that Tae-Nek's land was supplied with goods through direct transaction with the plaintiff, and the defendant merely provided only the name of the contract, so the defendant does not bear the obligation to pay the price for the production and supply to the plaintiff.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 6 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 6, the defendant entered into a contract with the defendant on May 23, 2013 for the "Peong Engineering East DMB Proxt" site including value-added tax on the manufacturing contract for "Sanitary Fire-Fighting and HVAC materials", with regard to the "Peong Engineering East East DM Ltd." site as of May 23, 2013,

According to the above facts, the defendant is awarded a contract for the production and supply of "Sanitary Fire-Fighting and HVAC materials" on the site of "PP pro rata Engineering East Asia" from Thailand.