1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells construction materials, such as a third party, under the trade name of “C”.

B. On February 11, 2016, the Defendant is the husband of D, and D entered into a construction contract with E with respect to the construction of a multi-family housing and a neighborhood living facility on the Franpo City F (hereinafter “instant construction”) on the construction period from February 15, 2016 to June 14, 2016, with the construction amount of KRW 350 million.

C. At the request of E, the Plaintiff supplied building materials to the instant construction site from July 1, 2016 to August 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion first supplied construction materials to the instant construction site from July 2016 on condition of credit card advance payment upon E’s request. The Plaintiff maintained transaction at an implied level, but the amount of outstanding credit payment arising from the transaction was exceeded KRW 1 million around August 10, 2016, the Plaintiff rejected additional supply of construction materials.

On August 13, 2016, the Defendant found the Plaintiff Burial and requested that the Plaintiff supply not only the pre-existing trauma but also the materials supplied thereafter as well as the materials supplied thereafter, on credit, to the owner of the instant construction, and the Plaintiff supplied the building materials in addition to the construction site of this case.

As such, the defendant is a party who has entered into a construction material supply contract with the plaintiff or is promised to pay the construction material credit to the plaintiff at least, and the defendant is obligated to pay 7,257,250 won to the plaintiff.

3. We examine the judgment. Of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to support the above assertion, it is difficult to believe that the statement of evidence No. 2, which is the statement of the plaintiff's staff member, is nothing more than it is.