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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an individual entrepreneur who supplies and constructs a different day and instrument with the trade name of B.

When the Plaintiff supplied a typical and sanitary instrument to the Multi-household Construction Corporation on the Daegu Nam-gu and one parcel, it would be directly paid by the Defendant.

From October 2014 to November 201, the Plaintiff supplied the foregoing construction work with Typ and sanitary tools. In this regard, on February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice of KRW 21,736,000 under the name of the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 10,736,000 from the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant new construction”). The Defendant is liable to pay the price of goods as one of the parties to the contract, or (2) as the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act who lent the name to D, or (3) as the principal who conferred the power of representation in connection with the said construction.

④ In addition, the Defendant paid KRW 8,00,000 to the Plaintiff with respect to the tax invoice of KRW 21,736,000 issued in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s partial repayment constitutes approval for the entire obligation.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay 10,736,000 won to the plaintiff for the amount of goods unpaid.

B. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), each of the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 21,736,000 under the name of the Defendant on February 13, 2015; (b) the account transfer of KRW 8,000,000 from the Defendant on February 13, 2015; (c) the Plaintiff issued the transaction statement as of October 17, 2014 under the name of the Defendant with the name of the recipient; (d) the Plaintiff issued the transaction statement as of October 23, 2014; and (e) November 7, 2014 at the bottom of the said transaction statement.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and the party who engaged in the instant construction work and supplied the instruments necessary for the instant construction is the Defendant.

Rather, there is no dispute between the parties.