The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur engaged in the manufacture and sale of the following business names: “C” and “C”.

B. Upon the Defendant’s husband D’s request on March 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied and installed a supply facility of 15,600,000 won in total at the construction site of multi-family housing (hereinafter “this case’s construction”); and (b) installed a supply facility of 15,60,000 won at the site of the construction site of a multi-family housing (hereinafter “this case’s construction”); and (c) installed a supply facility of 1,950,000 won in total at the site of the Seoul Special-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City FM (hereinafter “instant F construction”).

C. On February 18, 2016, the Defendant is the owner of the instant construction project, for which the construction permit was granted, and the owner of the instant F construction project.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction,” in total of the instant construction and the instant F construction, D.

On March 10, 2017, from the defendant's bank account to the plaintiff's bank account.

The amount of KRW 9,00,000 was paid in the price for the delivery of the Plaintiff’s phishing, shoes, etc. (hereinafter “supply of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's husband D requested the installation of the supply of this case from the defendant's husband D, but the plaintiff knew that D was "B" on the advertisement board of the construction site of this case and the plaintiff was "D" on May 21, 2019. In light of all circumstances, the plaintiff did not doubt that the contracting party is the defendant. The contracting party to the supply contract of this case is the defendant who is the owner of each of the construction works of this case and D was represented by the defendant, and the defendant was the owner of each of the construction works of this case, so the defendant was the total amount of KRW 17,550,000 (=15,600,000 on the permitted construction site of this case).