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. A. Around May 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for “B” (on the spot: Suwon-gun C; hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Ulsan Forest Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ulul Forest Industry Development”).

B. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant supplied stone equivalent to KRW 5,78,933, including KRW 3,300,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on June 24, 2013, and KRW 2,478,933 on July 3, 2013.

C. The Plaintiff paid all corresponding amounts to the Defendant on each of the above dates according to the tax invoice issued by the Defendant on each of the building stones delivery days.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. As alleged in 1-C, the Ulsan Forest Industry Development agreed to pay the price of the above stone directly to the Defendant, and the Defendant accepted this and issued a marina revised electronic tax invoice on the ground of the rescission of the contract. Accordingly, the Defendant consented to the cancellation of the supply contract of the stone with the Plaintiff, or the acceptance of the development of the Ulsan Forest Industry with the Plaintiff’s obligation for exemption from liability.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return KRW 5,778,933 received as the price for stone to the plaintiff.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each written evidence Nos. 2 and 4 as a whole of the pleadings, ① the Plaintiff paid the stone price in full as set forth in paragraph 1(c) and requested the Defendant to re-issuance of a tax invoice on the ground that the Ulsan Forest Industry Development was to pay the stone price directly to the Defendant on the face of the week after re-issuance of the tax invoice. ② The Defendant issued the tax invoice with the person who is supplied with the mountain forest industry development as set forth in subparagraph 2 and 4, and the Defendant issued the electronic tax invoice correction for the Plaintiff as of July 10, 2010, and it can be recognized that the modified reason stated “cancellation of the contract.”