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. Basic facts

A. From October 2012 to June 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a household, such as bed, tring, etc., to the Defendant during the period from around October 2012 to around June 2013. The price of the goods was paid a total of KRW 6.4 million on eight occasions from December 4, 2012 to May 31, 2013, and the remainder was not paid.

B. On the other hand, the Defendant operated the Defendant’s temporary purchase boxes at two greenhouse greenhouses located in the southyang-si, the Namyang-si Co., Ltd., but, on June 29, 2013, fire occurred at the same place, and all of the said stores, internal furnitures, office supplies, etc. were destroyed.

C. After that, on August 22, 2013, the Defendant, with respect to damages to households, office supplies, etc. caused by the said fire, prepared and submitted a list of inventory and damages stating the details of the total amount of KRW 8,6130,000,00, including eight households supplied by the Plaintiff, equivalent to the total amount of KRW 1.8 million, which were provided by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. (ⅰ) during the instant transaction period, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a 1,0560,000 won amounting to KRW 1,160,000,000,000 (i) during the said transaction period, but did not receive KRW 1,0560,000 (i.e., KRW 1,0560,640), and (ii) at the time, the transaction method was to seek payment against the Defendant of the unpaid amount of KRW 4160,00,000,00,000 (ii) sold the household to the Plaintiff by car-surgs, in which the 500 kinds of household goods are written in advance, and then ordered the Plaintiff to sell the said household to the Defendant as the first agreed price for the goods. However, for convenience, the Plaintiff’s order was asserted to the effect that the Defendant was

The defendant is supplied by the plaintiff during the transaction period i.e., the defendant.