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. Basic facts

A. From February 27, 2011, the Plaintiff is engaged in the oil sales business under the trade name “D gas station” in the Jeonnam Ma-gun C.

B. From April 30, 2014 to October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied 4,7310,000 won in total to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) (the representative G; hereinafter “F”), which was under construction in the implementation of the improvement project site for the eropitic roads in the eropitic Zone in the Jeonnam-gun, the Plaintiff supplied petroleum equivalent to the total amount of KRW 4,731

C. F pays the Plaintiff KRW 27 million out of the above oil price, and the remainder of the unpaid oil price at present is KRW 20,310,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers for those with virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, as the husband of G, the representative director of F, was the husband of G, and the amount of oil unpaid by F was suspended due to the increase of oil supply, the Defendant called “F would be responsible for the unpaid oil price and the amount of oil to be incurred later” on August 2014. On December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff said that “I would be responsible for the payment of the unpaid oil price and the amount of oil to be incurred later.” On February 2015, 2015, the Defendant held that F would be liable for the unpaid oil price to the Plaintiff on the first and subsequent occasions.

Since the Defendant decided to repay F’s above oil payment obligation to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid oil price of KRW 20310,000 and the delay damages therefor.

B. According to each of the statements in evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 8, H was found to be a gold comprehensive construction corporation in order to receive the above oil price on December 15, 2014. The fact that at the time, the Defendant alleged to the effect that H would be liable for the oil price, is recognized, but it is insufficient to acknowledge that the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to pay the above oil price to the Plaintiff as an individual’s qualification, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument is justified.