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. Basic facts

A. On November 2010, the Defendant operating the food machinery manufacturing business chain “C” installed a Dotori m (hereinafter “instant filtering”) with the size of 800 x 1250 x 1800 Dori mar in the factory of “D” operated by the Plaintiff.

B. After that, the Defendant filed a lawsuit with Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2013Gada48918 seeking payment of the amount of KRW 16 million for the leisure period and damages for delay as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the court. On May 25, 2013, the above court rendered the decision of performance recommendation as the Defendant’s request. On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff did not raise an objection despite receiving the original copy of the said decision, and the said decision became final and conclusive as is on the 16th day of the same month (hereinafter “instant decision of performance recommendation”), and on September 24, 2013, the Defendant seized the instant decision of performance recommendation with the title of execution, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 15, 2013.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 26,825,00 from G, who is the representative of “F Agricultural Partnership” (hereinafter “F Agricultural Partnership”), but the non-party corporation set the amount of KRW 50,000 as a budget for the purchase of machinery, the Plaintiff introduced the Defendant to G as a mechanical supplier. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant, supplied machinery based on a quotation plus KRW 13,000,000,000,000 to the actual supply price to the non-party corporation, and returned it to the Plaintiff as part of the Plaintiff’s claim. The Defendant returned KRW 13,000,000,000,000,000, which was more than the amount of KRW 13,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and the remaining KRW 3,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff was replaced by the supply of the instant leisure machine, and the amount was reduced to the Plaintiff’s business type.