1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The parties' assertion

A. From July 25, 2013 to April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a total of KRW 55,970,101 for construction works, such as pipes, safs, and safety caps, but did not receive the price of the goods from the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above price of 5,970,101 won and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant received the supply of construction goods from the Plaintiff while performing construction works upon entering into a subcontract for permanent residence B in 2009, but discontinued transactions with the Plaintiff from July 2013.

In addition, construction goods supplied by the Plaintiff are used for the removal of obstacles, and since D, who is the actual party to the Plaintiff’s punishment, worked as the Defendant’s employee and did not claim for the removal of obstacles to Tae Young Construction Co., Ltd., the primary contractor from August 2013, the Defendant did not receive construction goods from the Plaintiff after July 2013.

Therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay the above price to the plaintiff.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 75, 81 through 88 (including serial numbers), and Eul's testimony and arguments, the plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the defendant that the defendant supplied construction goods, such as pipes, packaging plastic bags, valves, etc. equivalent to KRW 55,970,101 to April 25, 2014. The defendant's employee confirmed the above tax invoice issued by the plaintiff and obtained approval of the representative director with regard to the transaction details between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the sub-subcontract company that received some construction works from the defendant supplied from the plaintiff for the above construction work for the above period. The defendant directly paid the price for construction goods supplied by the plaintiff to the above construction work company, while the defendant deducted the price for construction goods supplied by the plaintiff to the above construction work company from the construction work price.