1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that D, the site manager of the new construction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Construction Project (hereinafter "new construction of this case"), supplied materials, such as cement amounting to KRW 22,846,450, and accordingly, the defendant received tax invoices issued by the plaintiff as the recipient of the defendant, and paid KRW 12,839,200, out of the price of the above materials, the plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 10,007,250 to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is merely a contract for the instant new construction works to the Busan River Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul River Construction Co., Ltd.”), but did not conclude a material supply contract with the Plaintiff, and that part of the construction cost was directly remitted to the Plaintiff at the request of the Busan River Construction Co., Ltd., and thus, the Defendant is not liable to pay

2. Determination

A. First, a contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the supply of materials, such as cement.

We examine whether it can be deemed that there was an agreement for the Defendant to pay the above material price directly to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, 3, 2-2, 3-1, 3-5, 4-1, 2-5, and 5 of the evidence No. 1-1, 4-2, and 5, the Plaintiff from January 31, 2013 to the point of view of the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff has the same year.

3. By November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied cement, material, etc. equivalent to KRW 22,846,450 (hereinafter “instant materials”) to the site of the instant new construction project, and issued a tax invoice with the Defendant. The Defendant wired KRW 12,839,200 to the Plaintiff on February 6, 2013, and the Plaintiff claimed the instant material cost against the secondary construction (this Court Decision 2013Gau23281), but on November 27, 2013, the reason is that “ there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff supplied the instant materials to the secondary construction.”