A. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who runs a wholesale business with the trade name of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C 328, and the Defendant is a person who runs a retail business with the trade name of “E”, such as collection office, day, etc. in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government F.

B. From around 2009, the Defendant continued to engage in the transaction with the Plaintiff, a daily wholesaler, and continued to engage in the transaction with the Plaintiff, around November 2013.

Since July 26, 2014, the Defendant resumed the transaction with the Plaintiff from around July 26, 2014, and continued to receive work from the Plaintiff every day until August 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, result of the defendant's principal examination, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) entered into a transaction by November 2013, where the transaction was suspended in the absence of 13,710,500 won in the balance of the outstanding amount while providing services to the Defendant by November 2013. Moreover, the amount of KRW 57,056,000 in credit accrued from July 2, 2014 to the Defendant again from July 17, 2015. The Defendant deducted the amount of KRW 20,00,000 paid for September 2015 from the total amount of the outstanding amount of KRW 70,766,50 in the remainder of the outstanding amount of KRW 50,76,50 (the amount stated in the claim as KRW 51,62,500, or the amount claimed as KRW 50,766,506,500 in the preparatory document dated 2, 2018, and the Plaintiff specified the outstanding amount as KRW 50,760,5000.

2) On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay, and that there is no credit transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and most of the cash payment was made on the purchase site. A large amount of credit transaction as alleged by the Plaintiff is not a large amount of credit transaction as set forth by the Plaintiff, and a large wholesaler in the G market did not unilaterally engage in a large amount of credit transaction as set forth by the Plaintiff, and the entry in the transaction ledger and the statement prepared by the Plaintiff cannot be trusted

B. First of all, determination 1 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on July 26, 2014.