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. In around 2014, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for interior and wood construction among the new apartment construction works in the Dong-gu in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu.

On July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied Article 43 (hereinafter “instant goods”) to the said new apartment construction site, with regard to the Atet Month Twit (hereinafter “instant construction”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, testimony of party witness C, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff supplied the goods of this case to the defendant through the plaintiff C in KRW 1,655,50 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply). Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 1,655,500 for the goods of this case and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant merely subcontracted the instant construction to Defendant C, and did not conclude a contract for the supply of the instant goods with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the price of the goods of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff and the defendant dispute as to whether the contract for the supply of the goods of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant.

B. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, Eul, other than the defendant, signed a trade specifications and a written confirmation of delivery of materials submitted by the plaintiff, and the defendant 9,830,000 won to Eul on July 24, 2014, the defendant 3,000,000 won to C on July 24, 2014;

8. 29. 29. D, E, F, and G paid a total of KRW 6,830,000.

(2) The facts that the payment was made may be recognized.

C. However, in light of the above facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments, the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the instant goods supply contract with the Defendant, not C is insufficient to reverse the conclusion of the aforementioned recognition alone.

① On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff.