1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant supplied agricultural materials, such as fertilizers, from July 1, 201 to September 17, 2014, to the Plaintiff and sold them to the local farm household B.

Among them, the portion supplied through C from July 1, 201 to October 31, 2011 (hereinafter “instant transaction period”) is also supplied to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,850,044, in total, the remaining amount of the goods additionally supplied between June 1, 201 and June 7, 201, i.e., the payment angle for the entire period, i., the amount of KRW 33,606,192, and the subsequent amount of KRW 33,606,192, and the amount of KRW 6,243,852.

B. Since the part of the price for the goods that occurred during the transaction period of this case was supplied to C rather than to the defendant, there is no obligation to pay the price for the goods.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of this case, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant supplied goods equivalent to KRW 28,835,384 after the transaction period of this case and paid KRW 29,348,040 (the amount obtained by deducting KRW 6,140,628 from the value-added tax) to the Plaintiff as the price for the transaction after the transaction period of this case. Thus, the outstanding amount is not remaining in relation to the transaction after the transaction period of this case.

Therefore, the key issue of the instant case is whether the price for the goods generated during the instant transaction period is a transaction with C or a transaction with the Defendant.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, Gap evidence 2 through 8, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 3, 5 through 11, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4-6, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 8-12, Eul evidence 7-1, 8-2, and Eul evidence 8-12, and the testimony of the witness of the court of first instance at the court of first instance, it is not a transaction with Eul during the trading period of this case, and it is possible to consider the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole.