A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in mechanical parts processing business under the trade name of C Company, and the Defendant is a person who engages in mechanical parts manufacturing business under the trade name of D Company.

B. From September 2013 to March 2014, the Plaintiff processed machinery parts and supplied them to the Defendant.

C. An electronic tax invoice with the following content was issued by a supplier or a person supplied with a “C Company (Plaintiff)” as a supplier or a “D Company (Defendant).”

On October 31, 2013, 1,670,000 167,000 167,837,000 1,837,00 on October 31, 2013, 200 3,160,00 3,160,000 3,476,470 3,003 December 31, 2013; 4,266,000 426,604,604,692,6040 404 on December 29, 2014; 10,000,210,002,000, 2000, 2,000, 200, 310,310,310, 2005 318,018,010,508,010,510,018

D. The Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 1,837,00 on January 10, 2014, KRW 3,000,000 on March 6, 2014, and KRW 980,00 on April 17, 2014, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is obligated to pay only a part of the cost of processing machinery parts (hereinafter “processing cost”) to the Plaintiff, and the remainder of KRW 8,402,100 is not paid. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the Processing cost of KRW 8,402,100 and delay damages therefor.

B. The statement of transactions submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence is that the Defendant supplied machinery parts from the Plaintiff and re-processed them to the original contractor, and then supplied them to the original contractor, and it is difficult to believe that the transaction statement submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence is more excessive than the actual processing cost.

In addition, the cost of processing machinery parts in December 2013 and January 2014 is KRW 1,143,100, and the value of supply in January 2014 is KRW 676,200 if the Plaintiff unilaterally issued electronic tax invoices without settling the processing cost with the Defendant and the Defendant settled the processing cost that the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff.