1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2015, the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 7,205,00 (including value-added tax) to the painting businesses designated by the Defendant.

B. On May 13, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 3,341,00 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant via C, and supplied goods equivalent to KRW 7,205,00. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 3,341,00,000, and the remainder is not paid. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 3,864,00.

B. The Defendant asserted that he was not the Plaintiff, but entered into a contract with C, and paid KRW 3 million in advance to C.

The remaining amount, excluding the above 3 million won and the amount corresponding to the defective goods, is KRW 3,341,00,000, and the plaintiff paid the above 3,341,000 won upon C's request by C.

Therefore, the defendant paid all the price of the goods.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. A. Around April 2015, the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 7,205,00 to a painting designated by the Defendant and received KRW 3,341,00 from the Defendant on May 13, 2015 are as set out in the above basic facts.

B. As to whether a goods supply contract has been concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the following facts or circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, namely, the fact that the plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant even before the instant case, and was directly paid the price for the goods, ② the plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant to the Defendant, and directly claimed the price for the goods after the supply to the Defendant, and the defendant exchanged directly with the Plaintiff regarding the payment of the remainder, ③ the plaintiff sent an electronic tax invoice to the Defendant.