1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 25, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract on the supply of D and salt with the trade name called C, and determined D’s business staff E and F in the said contract.

B. The Defendant was supplied via E approximately 200 salted on October 4, 2016, and approximately 500 salted on October 14, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 3, 5, 6 (if there is a tentative number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On October 4, 2016, according to the Defendant’s salt supply order, the Plaintiff supplied salt 200 tons to the Defendant on October 14, 2016, and salt 535 tons on October 14, 2016. Although the Defendant agreed to pay the price for salt supplied as KRW 7,800 per salt, the Defendant did not pay that price until November 30, 2016. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should pay the price for salt (=73,000 won x 735 x 7,800 won) and delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff. (ii) The Defendant did not have concluded a supply contract with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant received salt from the Plaintiff, not from the Plaintiff, but from the Plaintiff via E, and the Defendant was also paid the price for salt supplied by the Defendant to G in accordance with the Defendant’s request.

B. Determination 1) As evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, each written contract submitted by the Plaintiff (No. 2-1 and 2-2 of the evidence A), and the Defendant asserted that the said written contract was not prepared.

The author's column of the above contract includes the defendant's personal information as a side letter, and there is no signature or seal of the defendant.

In addition, although the above contract contains the purport that the defendant assumed salt and the name of the defendant is written in writing, it is difficult to see that the pen book is the same as the written book of the defendant stated in the evidence No. 3 submitted by the defendant, and the above additional part was written by the defendant.