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. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), it is recognized that the plaintiff engaged in gold-type manufacturing business, etc. supplied gold-type manufacturing business to the defendant who runs the gold-type manufacturing business in the name of "B" from February 12, 2016 to April 6, 2016 on about ten occasions, and did not receive KRW 6,646,750 for the amount of the goods.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts to the purport that 6,646,750 won of the above price for the above goods shall be limited to the price unilaterally presented by the plaintiff after supplying the gold of this case, and that the plaintiff and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the above goods price. Since the plaintiff and the defendant have made an oral agreement to determine the goods price with the standard unit price at the early stage of the contract, since the plaintiff and the defendant have reached an oral agreement to determine the goods price, the amount of 10 to 15% reduced from the initial estimate price and the market price of the gold of this case supplied by the plaintiff should be recognized as the price for the goods of this case.

However, the above recognized evidence reveals the following circumstances, namely, the Defendant, even before being supplied with the instant gold punishment, was provided with gold punishment by the Plaintiff on January 7, 2016 and January 27, 2016, which are the day before being provided with the instant gold punishment, and paid the price of goods according to the price indicated in the transaction statement presented by the Plaintiff; the Defendant, from February 12, 2017 to February 15, 2017, was provided with part of the instant gold punishment by the Plaintiff, and received the transaction statement thereof by e-mail from the Plaintiff on February 15, 2017, without raising any objection to the price of goods indicated in the transaction statement. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to determine the price of goods with the standard unit price, the Defendant has to pay this amount to the Plaintiff.