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 and above.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number, if there is no special reference; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff, who had engaged in construction material sales business in the trade name of Eul, supplied the defendant with goods, such as piping materials equivalent to KRW 223,497,604 (including value-added tax) (hereinafter "value-added tax"), for the purpose of the mechanical facility construction business, etc. from November 16, 2010 to April 22, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff is a person who received reimbursement of KRW 106,101,00 from the Defendant.

C. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 117,396,604, excluding the remainder of KRW 106,101,00, which the Plaintiff was repaid at KRW 223,497,604, and damages for delay thereof.

2. Judgment on the defense of performance

A. The Defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 15,00,00 on June 29, 2012; KRW 10,000,000 on September 28, 2012; KRW 5,000,000 on November 16, 2012; KRW 5,000,000 on December 31, 2012; KRW 2,000 on January 11, 2013; KRW 1,000,00 on deposit in the account of community credit cooperatives; KRW 1,00,00,000 on deposit in the account of each of the above KRW 1,00,00,00 on deposit in the account of 0,000 on deposit in each of the above KRW 1,50,00 on deposit in the account of 0,305,00 on deposit in the account of community credit cooperatives.

3. As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the part that the defendant deposited into the account of the above community credit cooperative is not a valid repayment, since the plaintiff has no right to receive repayment from D.

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 7, and evidence No. 7 and evidence No. 1 of the court of first instance and the whole purport of the testimony and arguments of witness I of the court of first instance are considered as a whole.