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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells timber, etc. in the construction site under the trade name “D” in the net City C.

In addition, the defendant is a company that has undertaken the E-construction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) in Naju City.

B. On May 16, 2014, the Defendant entered into a subcontract (the construction cost: KRW 162 million; the construction period: from May 17, 2014 to September 30, 2014) with respect to the molding hole construction (hereinafter “instant molding construction”) among the instant construction works, and F performed the molding construction pursuant to the said subcontract.

C. From May 31, 2014 to September 13, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied timber necessary for the instant molding construction to the instant construction site.

The price of timber supplied by the Plaintiff is 19,171,790 won (including value-added tax) in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a supply contract with the Defendant for timber necessary for the instant molding construction, and supplied timber at the construction site of this case from May 31, 2014 to September 13, 2014.

However, the defendant did not pay the price for timber supplied by the plaintiff.

Even if it is not recognized that the Plaintiff entered into a timber supply contract with the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to pay the wood price supplied by the Plaintiff at the construction site of this case directly.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 19,171,790 won of wood price and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered into a supply contract for timber necessary for the instant molding construction is not the Defendant but the subcontractor of the said molding construction. There is no fact that the Defendant did not directly agree to pay the price of timber supplied by the Plaintiff at the construction site of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's objection.