Expenses for appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a corporation that operates the business of manufacturing and selling printed machines. The Defendant is a person who runs the printing-related business in the name of “C.” The Plaintiff is the Defendant around November 2015. As to the Plaintiff’s supply price of one printing machine (hereinafter “the printing machine of this case”) of KRW 330,000,000 (value-added tax separate) between the Defendant and the Defendant around November 201, the Defendant asserts that value-added tax is included in value-added tax. However, the Plaintiff’s content certification also states that “30,000,000 won for the printing machine of this case (value-added tax separate)” is included in value-added tax amount of KRW 330,00,000,000 for the printing machine of this case, 300,000 won for the printing machine of this case, 300,000 won for the supply balance of the printing machine of this case, 300,000 won for the Plaintiff’s supply of KRW 300,3000,3000.30.

The printing machine sales contract was made oral and delivered to the Defendant on January 12, 2016.

Around November 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) prepared a goods supply contract for the instant printing machine, which is KRW 420,000,000 (value-added tax separate); (b) applied for a loan; and (c) subsequently, revoked the application for the loan; and (d) based on the above contract, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice, which is KRW 462,00,000 (value-added tax amounting to KRW 42,00,000 (value-added tax amounting to KRW 42,00,000), which is the total amount of January 12, 2016, and then re-issued the corrected electronic tax invoice, which is revoked on January 31, 2016.

On February 5, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant printing machine payment to the Plaintiff on February 5, 20125.